Re: Total protection for your software against crack

Simon Johnson wrote:
>
> You see, that's the thing with trade-secrets. They never have any
> substance because if they did then they'd patent them. That's the most
> profitable way to turn a trade-secret in to a money making machine.

   Dubious. A trade secret can just be the result of a lot of work
without any invention.

> Of course, they'll rant about all their secret IP in their product
> briefs etc but really it's all just snake-oil. It's been recommended by
> everyone in the field that you shouldn't use cryptography covered by
> patents.

   While would I agree that standards-making bodies do well to avoid
patented techniques, there's nothing wrong with patented techniques per
se. RSA was a good algorithm even before its patent expired. AFAIK, OCB
is a good algorithm technically.

> However, I believe that we should be even more vociferous in
> our attacks on "cryptography" based on trade secrets simply because
> this is on an even worse footing.

   Yep.

--Mike Amling
Received on Thu Sep 29 21:44:30 2005