obzabor
No favorite files added yet
(Jun 3, 2007 - 9:31 PM)
> Certicom's claims have not yet been tested in Court,
> so you cannot say there was any theft. Read those
> patents: they are ridiculous (obvious, too broad,
> having prior art, etc).
...but NSA decided to pay up ($25mil) anyways; and Bruce Schneier says the opposite. So, dunno. They are likely to have something here.
Not *every* patent is ridiculous, though many are.
> Until recently Certicom claimed that it had not sued
> anyone over its patents. It was just a business
> decision, not that they are nice boys. A too early
> lawsuit would have scared away many potential users.
> Waiting until there are enough users to make it very
> expensive to switch over to another encryption
> scheme is just mean.
Well, Certicom is a company of 120 people, with some 5-10 who you can consider the management team. So, who is the Machiavelli? The only candidate, CEO for the last 5 years has just been fired. So no, conspiracy theory wouldn't work.
The timeline makes a lot of sense: end of 2003 they receive a first validation of their patents from NSA; 2004-2005 they update their strategy for licensing model. 2005-2007 they try to license. Now they go to court with those who refused for two years or more.
If you need a conspiracy theory anyways, how about this: a cowardly CEO refused to be aggressive in enforcing the patents, until angry board and shareholders got rid of him and started doing it...
(Jun 3, 2007 - 9:17 PM)
Without a product??? What's this, then?
http://www.certicom.com/...action=product,sbcrypto