Property RIghts in Keys

[Donald Eastlake]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Perry E. Metzger <perry at piermont.com> wrote:
>
> sbg at acw.com writes:
>> ...
>
> 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, depending on how creative the extension fields are :-), or may not
dependent on that, why isn't it copyrightable?

Donald

> 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
>

==============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-634-2066 (home)
 155 Beaver Street
 Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3 at gmail.com

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