Property RIghts in Keys

[Perry E. Metzger]

sbg at acw.com writes:
>>> However, a cert seems almost certainly *not* to be IP.
>
> If anybody can alter, revoke or reissue a certificate then I agree it is
> common property to which attaches no meaningful notion of property rights.
>
> If on the other hand only certain people can alter, revoke or reissue a
> certificate

There are four kinds of intellectual property. Is it a trade secret?
No. Is it a trademark or something allied like trade dress? No. Is it
patentable? No. Is it copyrightable? No.

So, from there, it isn't intellectual property as understood in US
law. It might have certain features that make it look similar to some
form of intellectual property, but that says nothing. If it isn't a
trade secret, trademarked, patented or copyrighted, it doesn't
count.

> Whether it is intellectual property or some other form of property or even
> some new form of property is I also agree debatable.

If the statutes and the courts don't know about it, it doesn't exist.

Anyway, one might also loudly wonder what the point of claiming
otherwise would be.

The point of claiming property rights is to restrict the use of
something. Once you've issued a certificate, how would you be
attempting to restrict its use?

Either the math already restricts its use in certain ways, or it
doesn't. If it doesn't, the cert is worthless. If it does, you need no
court to enforce your so-called "rights". The whole thing is clearly
the product of some lawyer with no idea what he was doing.

Perry
-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry at piermont.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com