Subject: [pkix] IPR Disclosure CERTICOM CORP's Statement about IPR related to RFC 3279 and RFC 3280

From: IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2019 09:55:20 -0700

Dear Russ Housley, Tim Polk, Lawrence E. Bassham III:

An IPR disclosure that pertains to your RFC entitled "Algorithms and
Identifiers for the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and
Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile" (RFC3279) was submitted to the
IETF Secretariat on  and has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual
Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3798/). The
title of the IPR disclosure is "CERTICOM CORP's Statement about IPR related
to RFC 3279 and RFC 3280"

Thank you

IETF Secretariat

---

From: Peter Gutmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 23:10:19 +0000

>to RFC 3279 and RFC 3280"

Could someone, maybe an IP lawyer, have a look at this and try and figure out
what, if anything, it has to do with 3280, and more importantly 2459 which
predates the patent by a decade?

Peter.

---

From: Andrea Caccia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 02:53:43 +0200

The patent should be the attached one and it mentions RFC 3279 and RFC 3280 as "cited by examiner".
Does this mean that "the patent(s) or patent application(s) disclosed above that would necessarily be infringed by implementation of the technology required by the relevant IETF specification" that are already were published when the patent was examined, in fact also mentioned in the patent itself?

I'm not a lawyer but this makes no sense to me.

Andrea

@Peter: sorry if you received twice the message, I used a wrong account to send the previous one 

> Il giorno 4 ott 2019, alle ore 01:10, Peter Gutmann <[email-masked]> ha scritto:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pkix mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 08:03:34 -0400

"A method of Verifying a pair of correspondents in electronic
transaction, the correspondents each including first and sec
ond signature schemes and wherein the first signature scheme
is computationally more difficult in signing than Verifying
and the second signature scheme is computationally more
difficult in verifying than signing."

The CMU system did that back in 1995. They used DSA and RSA for the
performance advantage on the server.

It seems pretty irrelevant at this point as we are using ECDH for both at
this point.

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:55 PM Andrea Caccia <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Does this mean that "the patent(s) or patent application(s) disclosed
> above that would necessarily be infringed by implementation of the
> technology required by the relevant IETF specification" that are already
> were published when the patent was examined, in fact also mentioned in the
> patent itself?
>

---

From: Dan Brown <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:31:15 +0000

FYI,

This IPR disclosure was removed at the submitter's request.

 https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3798/

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 09:41:27 -0400

I had noticed that, meant to mention it.

My point in raising the prior art was to point out to Certicom that this is
a rubbish patent in any case. Sirbu and co at CMU have the prior art
(Netbill?) and it is not a scheme that has any relevance today.