Re:No Source Code == No Patent
by pclmulqdq on Monday April 17, 2023 @10:04AM
(#35600842)
Yes, because there's a reasonable chance they would not have been invented (or they would have taken much longer to appear) without the economic upside of a patent. Also, a patent trades forced disclosure for a limited monopoly. The disclosure in both of these cases has been very good.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:No Source Code == No Patent
by beached_whale on Monday April 17, 2023 @10:34AM
(#35601353)
Also, people immediately licensed the patents and it further research in the field that was owned by entities like the NSA prior
Re:No Source Code == No Patent
by edflsafoiewq on Monday April 17, 2023 @03:48PM
(#35605618)
Very dubious, given that both have since been superseded by better patent-free alternatives.
Which are all built on top of the public disclosure of these algorithms, which was required by... the patents!
Prior to RSA being patented, a lot of encryption was proprietary (and probably mostly broken), and nobody could build on top of it. Post-patent, the RSA inventors could publish details and publicize their invention, which led to the alternatives.