2022.05.26 22:54:16 (1529928929179406337) from Daniel J. Bernstein:
Now posted a collection of evidence that the publication of DH was driven by the usual academic publication incentives, not by patents: https://cr.yp.to/patents/us/4200770.html As part of digging into the history, freed up various related litigation documents via RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/10434535/schlafly-v-public-key-partners/
2022.05.26 23:09:08 (1529932671417131008) from Daniel J. Bernstein:
Most patents that I've studied are on "inventions" that were published by other people independently, giving simpler examples of the damage done by the patent system. DH is unusual in that it wasn't published independently; that's why one has to look more closely at the history.
2022.05.26 23:18:48 (1529935106692878336) from Daniel J. Bernstein:
Meanwhile pro-patent articles such as https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1116&context=mttlr (1) say X was patented, (2) say the disclosure+deployment of X are of societal value, (3) leap to the conclusion that the patent on X was of societal value, and (4) never ask whether X would have been published anyway.