Subject: [Cfrg] Licensing of ECC (was: Defining inter operable ECC keys in for IETF protocols)

From: "Blumenthal, Uri" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:30:07 -0500

Peter, I fully agree with you. 

Hillarie, I think you're overly optimistic - probably a result of not working for a "deep-pocket employer". (Apologies if I am wrong.)

>From what I gathered talking to my lawyers and colleagues that were trying to license ECC - the license language from Certicom to NSA contains some "field of use" limitations which Certicom asserts that they interpret VERY narrowly versus the broader interpretation voiced by others shortly after the licensing to NSA took place.

Also, I suspect that there are "usage" and "implementation" patents that NSA did not get a license to, that would effectively block use of any sublicense that NSA can grant (subject to verification, of course).

My personal conclusion: if you are a one-man shop - maybe NSA sub-licensing is enough of a cover/protection. If you are a "deep-pockets company" - treat ECC as you would a rattlesnake until ECC patents expire.

In short, it looks like RSADSI all over again. (Déjà vu?)

Regards,
Uri
<Standard Disclaimer (I speak only for myself)>

-----Original Message-----
From: pgut001 [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 9:41 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Blumenthal, Uri
Subject: RE: [Cfrg] Defining inter operable ECC keys in for IETF protocols

"Blumenthal, Uri" <[email-masked]> writes:

>I would MUCH prefer ECC - but my lawyers (yuk!) are telling me that there are
>licensing problems, and supposed NSA contacts don't call them back.
>
>Anybody knows anything useful about licensing of ECC GF(p), that he can share
>with me?

Certicom have done such a good job of creating FUD about ECC legal issues
that, unless you're a Certicom licensee, it's easier to not use it at all.  So
far every time I've been asked about ECC support (which admittedly is once a
blue moon anyway), I've asked the organisation who want it to come back to me
with either proof of a Certicom license or a clear statement of which non-
infringing mechanisms they want me to implement.  In every case, after looking
at what's involved, they've decided they didn't need ECC that much anyway.
It's like the conclusion from Wargames, the only way to win is not to play.

Peter.

_______________________________________________
Cfrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Mar 2006 00:54:48 -0000

Curve25519 (http://cr.yp.to/ecdh.html) is state-of-the-art software for
elliptic-curve Diffie-Hellman. I've gone to considerable effort to track
down any potential patent claims against Curve25519; see Appendix A in
http://cr.yp.to/ecdh/curve25519-20051115.pdf. I've found no problems.

Blumenthal, Uri writes:
> treat ECC as you would a rattlesnake until ECC patents expire.

Precisely which patents are you talking about? Numbers, please.

---D. J. Bernstein, Professor, Mathematics, Statistics,
and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago