[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Taler] ECASH Act vs patents

From: Jeff Burdges
Subject: [Taler] ECASH Act vs patents
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 09:34:27 +0200

There is interest in personal TEEs for digital payments:



We security folk are allergic to TEEs of course, due to Intel, DRM
vendors, etc. all having tried & failed repeatedly while spending
billions, and due to the threat model being incredibly difficult.

It's likely secure TEEs could be built however, albeit incredibly slow
ones with limited functionality, like maybe FHE wired into randomized
layout FPGAs, ala Bunnie Hung's Betrusted device.

Although unlikely, it's plausible they make this work, without creating
an infinite inflation bug in the USD.

I noticed their bill lacks open patent provisions:


Can anyone explain how NIST enforces open patents?   Or does NIST not
always enforce open patents?  Should NIST be mentioned in the bill?

Is there legislation that requires open patents for NIST or elsewhere? 
If not, should there be?  Also, how should new legislation express the
requirement for open patents?

Also, NSF grants yield patents for the research institution.  Can the
legislation prevent this somehow?  It's plausible there is a highly
non-trivial research component here, which the NSF might manage instead
of NIST.

I've no drirect involvement here, so maybe direct comments to Rohan
Grey, who maybe involved in drafting the bill.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]