The microblog: 2020.07.30 18:20:31

2020.07.30 18:20:31 (1288872109557440513) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Andrea Basso (@andreavbasso)" (1288855985898115073):

The "doctrine of equivalents" automatically extends claims beyond their literal meaning. The specification says x^n-1 is just an example; I don't see how U.S. courts would allow x^n+1 to evade the patent. Also, the polynomial isn't explicit in the European version of the claim.


2020.07.05 08:58:35 (1279670996706836483) from Daniel J. Bernstein:

Warning: Patent, expiring 2032, covers subsequent LPR cryptosystem and derivatives such as Kyber, LAC, NewHope, NTRULPR, Round5, Saber, ThreeBears. Also, I'm increasingly skeptical of the idea that these avoid patent, expiring 2033.

2020.07.30 17:16:27 (1288855985898115073) from "Andrea Basso (@andreavbasso)":

Doesn’t claim 1 of the first patent explicitly state the ring R needs to be modulo x^n - 1? At a brief glance, it doesn’t seem like it covers the alternatives, so many of those schemes do not infringe, right?