How much is my encryption algorithm worth?

[Daniel Mullarkey]

I developed a lossless, key-based, encryption algorithm that can work in any modern programming language and it has a 1-to-1 relationship between the unencrypted values and the encrypted values as long as the key remains the same and the minimum values and maximum values are known. The key can also be of virtually limitless size. How much is this encryption algorithm potentially worth if I patent it?

[Arne Vajhøj]

Based on just this description: nothing.

Algorithms matching this description has been known for a few
hundred years.

Maybe it has some true uniqueness. But we don't know.

Besides I am skeptical about getting any encryption algorithm
that is patented with intention to make money to become a standard
today.

Arne

[Daniel Mullarkey]

Well, I enjoy computer programming, but I also enjoy making tons of money too! :8)

[Daniel Mullarkey]

On Saturday, March 22, 2014 11:22:59 PM UTC-4, Stefan Ram wrote:

> Daniel Mullarkey <corresp...@danielmullarkey.me> writes:
>
> >How much is this encryption algorithm potentially worth if I patent it?
>
>
>

> We know that you did not take care to research the
>
> appropriate newsgroup for a post that has no specific Java
>
> content. Thus, we can assume that you possibly also might
>
> not have taken care to read the standard literature about
>
> cryptography before writing your algorithm. This gives an
>
> upper bound for the potential worth of your algorithm.

Well, there are no other computer programming newsgroups, except for Unix, which would be even less relevant.

[Daniel Mullarkey]

On Saturday, March 22, 2014 11:14:34 PM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

Well, the algorithm uses carefully calculated mathematics to give the appearance of gibberish until it is decoded with the proper key or combination of keys. Other than that, I cannot reveal anything, lest I lose any intellectual property right opportunities that I have to the algorithm.

[Qu0ll]

"Daniel Mullarkey" wrote in message
news:f2ed5d9a-35f3-43dd...@googlegroups.com...

> Well, there are no other computer programming newsgroups, except for Unix,
> which would be even less relevant.

This is some kind of a joke right?

--
And loving it,

-Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
_________________________________________________
Qu0llS...@gmail.com
[Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]

[Simon Lewis]

Daniel Mullarkey <corresp...@danielmullarkey.me> writes:

> On Saturday, March 22, 2014 11:14:34 PM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 3/22/2014 10:53 PM, Daniel Mullarkey wrote:
>>
>> > I developed a lossless, key-based, encryption algorithm that can work
>>
>> > in any modern programming language and it has a 1-to-1 relationship
>>
>> > between the unencrypted values and the encrypted values as long as
>>
>> > the key remains the same and the minimum values and maximum values
>>
>> > are known. The key can also be of virtually limitless size. How much
>>
>> > is this encryption algorithm potentially worth if I patent it?
>>
>>
>>
>> Based on just this description: nothing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Algorithms matching this description has been known for a few
>>
>> hundred years.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe it has some true uniqueness. But we don't know.
>>
>>
>>
>> Besides I am skeptical about getting any encryption algorithm
>>
>> that is patented with intention to make money to become a standard
>>
>> today.
>>
>>
>>
>> Arne
>
> Well, the algorithm uses carefully calculated mathematics to give the appearance
> of gibberish until it is decoded with the proper key or combination of

Nice trolling! Can't believe you managed some serious responses!

[Simon Lewis]

"Qu0ll" <Qu0llS...@gmail.com> writes:

> "Daniel Mullarkey" wrote in message
> news:f2ed5d9a-35f3-43dd...@googlegroups.com...
>
>> Well, there are no other computer programming newsgroups, except for Unix,
>> which would be even less relevant.
>
> This is some kind of a joke right?

And you're adding to it as did the previous poster!

[lipska the kat]

On 23/03/14 02:53, Daniel Mullarkey wrote:
> I developed a lossless, key-based, encryption algorithm that can work in any modern programming language and it hasa 1-to-1 relationship between the unencrypted values and the encrypted

values as long as the key remains the same and the minimum values and
maximum values are known. The key can also be of virtually limitless
size. How much is this encryption algorithm potentially worth if I
patent it?

In your favorite search engine try the following search

"proprietary encryption algorithms"

I presume you are trying to 'monetize' (yuk) the algorithm rather than
an implementation of it.

Good luck with that.

Better to make it open source and make your money from consultancy. If
it's that good and it can be verified by thousands of pairs of eyes then
the money will come. You will be in demand as a security guru and fame
and fortune will follow ... probably.

--
lipska the kat - treacherous feline.
GNU/Linux user #560883 - linuxcounter.net

[rossum]

You will find that sci.crypt is a much more appropriate newsgroup for
cryptography.

Before posting there you need to check that your proposed algorithm is
proof against Differential Cryptography, Sliding Key attacks and all
the usual things to be expected of a reasonably secure crypto system.
We already have free, tested crypto systems which can resist such
attacks -- AES or Rabbit for example.

Patented crypto systems are usually avoided. There are many high
quality unpatented crypto options.

Unless your proposed system is faster (you *have* measured its speed,
haven't you?) or more secure than existing crypto systems then its
only use of for your own learning or amusement.

rossum

[Qu0ll]

"Simon Lewis" wrote in message news:8738i9p...@gmail.com...

>> This is some kind of a joke right?
>
> And you're adding to it as did the previous poster!

Your trolling conclusion is most probably accurate but I was prepared to
give him the benefit of the doubt. There are totally clueless posters too
and maybe this is just one of them.

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 3/23/2014 12:23 AM, Daniel Mullarkey wrote:
> On Saturday, March 22, 2014 11:14:34 PM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 3/22/2014 10:53 PM, Daniel Mullarkey wrote:
>>> I developed a lossless, key-based, encryption algorithm that can work
>>> in any modern programming language and it has a 1-to-1 relationship
>>> between the unencrypted values and the encrypted values as long as
>>> the key remains the same and the minimum values and maximum values
>>> are known. The key can also be of virtually limitless size. How much
>>> is this encryption algorithm potentially worth if I patent it?
>>
>> Based on just this description: nothing.
>>
>> Algorithms matching this description has been known for a few
>> hundred years.
>>
>> Maybe it has some true uniqueness. But we don't know.
>>
>> Besides I am skeptical about getting any encryption algorithm
>> that is patented with intention to make money to become a standard
>> today.
>

> Well, the algorithm uses carefully calculated mathematics to give

> theappearance of gibberish until it is decoded with the proper key or
> combination of keys.

That is practically the definition of encryption.

> Other than that, I cannot reveal anything, lest I
> lose any intellectual property right opportunities that I have to the
> algorithm.

Then best estimate of value is still zero.

Arne

[Joshua Cranmer 🐧]

I'd estimate about $0.

Cryptography is difficult and surprisingly involved. No one should be
willing to trust their data to an algorithm that has not undergone
intense cryptanalysis. At the very least, there needs to be signs that
the inventor is very much aware of cryptography and what can go wrong.
The selection process for the SHA-3, for example, rejected 26 of 51
round-1 applicants due to substantial cryptographic weaknesses, and many
of these were presumably proposed by active cryptographic researchers
(since it had to be approved well enough by NIST to make it into round 1).

Your coyness about describing any elements of the algorithm and the
inability to find a more appropriate venue (such as, I don't know,
sci.crypt) are highly suggestive that you have no practical experience
in understanding why cryptographic algorithms would be weak.

--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

[Jeff Higgins]

On 03/22/2014 10:53 PM, Daniel Mullarkey wrote:
> I developed a lossless, key-based, encryption algorithm that can work in any modern programming language and it has a 1-to-1 relationship between the unencrypted values and the encrypted values as long as the key remains the same and the minimum values and maximum values are known. The key can also be of virtually limitless size. How much is this encryption algorithm potentially worth if I patent it?
>

Good for you.
Obtain a patent.
Market a product.
What's in your wallet?

<http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/howtopat.htm>
<http://abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank/apply>

[Jeff Higgins]

On 03/22/2014 10:53 PM, Daniel Mullarkey wrote:

> I developed a lossless, key-based, encryption algorithm that can work in any modern programming language and it has a 1-to-1 relationship between the unencrypted values and the encrypted values as long as the key remains the same and the minimum values and maximum values are known. The key can also be of virtually limitless size. How much is this encryption algorithm potentially worth if I patent it?
>

immeasurable

[Jeff Higgins]

On 03/23/2014 11:17 PM, Jeff Higgins wrote:

> immeasurable
incalculable, inestimable, innumerable, untold, countless

[Jeff Higgins]

On 03/23/2014 06:04 AM, Simon Lewis wrote:
> Nice trolling! Can't believe you managed some serious responses!

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism.moderated/Jb_7Xt08w0w/fRlnOf2Y1uEJ>

[Simon Lewis]

But highly suggestive that he's a seasoned troll who knows just how to
get a bunch of opinionated blow hards puffing ;)

[Qu0ll]

"Simon Lewis" wrote in message news:87ior3v...@gmail.com...

> But highly suggestive that he's a seasoned troll who knows just how to
> get a bunch of opinionated blow hards puffing ;)

Probably. But has any harm been done? Some interesting points discussed...

[lipska the kat]

On 24/03/14 11:06, Simon Lewis wrote:
> Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidg...@verizon.invalid> writes:

<snip>

> But highly suggestive that he's a seasoned troll who knows just how to
> get a bunch of opinionated blow hards puffing ;)

Oh very funny, really, 'laughing my nuts off' as they say around here.
Looks like you will be well at home in their company ;-)

[Arne Vajhøj]

I am not convinced that he is a troll.

He got some replies.

But no heated discussions - just information presented.

Not what the typical troll desires.

Arne

[Kevin McMurtrie]

In article <ef4e8487-129c-481c...@googlegroups.com>,

Extremely large key encryption was invented centuries ago so it's worth
nothing. I recommend selling the large key exchange protocol as the
basis for a direct-to-TV spy movie. Misplaced CDs, briefcases
handcuffed to agents, decoy agents, decoy villains, guns, fast cars, etc.

[Jeff Higgins]

Order now, and get second Mullarkey Code license FREE!*
*Just pay separate postage and handling.