[ih] Why the six month draft expiration ?

[Bob Purvy]

There are a lot of statements in here, but suffice it to say that the
solution to "some scumbag patents an emerging standard" can already be
solved, IANAL but a statement about standards in the WG's charter, such
that any patents must be offered on FRAND or free license terms should do
it.

"First to File" has nothing to do with it, and neither does a 6-month
expiration rule.

What *would* make a difference is a reliable date stamp, so a lawyer can't
challenge the availability of a piece of prior art.

I was a tech advisor in Google's Patent Litigation department.  In one
case, I killed a patent belonging to Microsoft on digital maps (in Germany)
with a publication (not a patent). We went to a librarian at a university
to attest that the publication HAD been available on a given date. You
can't rely on the date printed on the journal.

On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 1:35 PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> On 2/3/2024 1:27 PM, Ross Callon via Internet-history wrote:
> > To me the six month expiration of an internet draft, plus the public
> > availability of old expired internet drafts, is a brilliant system.
>
> As I recall, drafts became inaccessible once they expired, to emphasize
> the desire that they not be cited or otherwise use.
>
> This, predictably, was not sustainable, as demands for old drafts
> constantly occurred.  So eventually they were kept online.
>
> d/
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>