Joe,
--On Saturday, June 29, 2002 6:32 PM -0700 Joe Touch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've recently had another close encounter with the patent
>> system and notions of prior art. It occurs to me that we
>> could make a slight modification to the Internet Draft
>> structure and encourage including an additional bit of
>> information that would be quite helpful in some cases:
> ...
>> So I think we
>> should encourage Internet-Draft editors and authors to list a
>> revision history when they consider it important.
> ..
>> And, where it seems appropriate to the authors or the
>> community, it seems to me that we might reasonably ask the
>> RFC Editor to carry these data forward into the archival form
>> of the document (if an RFC is actually produced).
>
> John,
>
> Those dates wouldn't be useful per se. Just because an RFC
> asserts "the ideas herein originated at the following earlier
> date", that probably isn't enough to establish the earlier
> date for patent purposes (pro or con).
Of course not.
> A revision history might be useful for other reasons, esp. as
> the ID progresses. But the ID is really the draft of an RFC
> (or a throw-away if there isn't an RFC). Information on the
> preliminary versions of a document, who added what when, etc.
> may be interesting at the time, but the contents of an RFC
> should strive to transcend that level of content.
I agree.
Please, folks, I am _not_ trying to restart the discussion of
"archival" I-Ds. Personally, I remain opposed to the idea, and
I believe that they should be treated as drafts and discarded.
If they result in an RFC, then the RFC should stand on its own.
Nor do I think that there is any quick fix to the patent
situation, least of all anything like this.
However, if someone is searching for prior art in good faith, a
backward pointer that indicates that something _might_ exist,
that there is a path worth investigating, seems worthwhile.
Similarly, if one is trying to invalidate a patent or push back
on an application, hints about where to look for things that the
patent-applicant should have known about at the time might be
helpful.
It is clearly cheap to provide the back pointers, at least
unless we try to turn it into something that "proves" anything
or "establishes dates for patent purposes". The key is what one
does given the back pointer. Me, I'd try get in touch with the
author, offer to pay a consulting fee if needed and appropriate,
and see whether there is an applicable history and how to
document it. Could that lead to a request to the Secretariat or
some other archive for an expired I-D? Sure, but the
Secretariat handles those requests now.
I am _just_ proposing a back pointer that tells interested
partie that there might be something worth looking for. No
more. Anything else takes us into ratholes with, IMO, little
benefit for the reasons you and others have pointed out.
john
