[ih] Saving IETF history

[Toerless Eckert]

Hah. Your last paragraph was the interesting aspect i completely ignored "Jury trial" ;-)

Cheers
    Toerless

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 09:50:50PM -0700, Jack Haverty wrote:
> Well, it's complicated.  Real answer is "probably not".  The actual
> claim is written in Patentese, and translating it into "download new
> versions of system software" was not straightforward. 
> 
> FYI, here's the actual claim:
> 
> =====
> 
> 12. A reprogrammable system comprising: 
> 
>   a digital detector for 
> receiving information of a transmission and detecting digital signals in
>  said transmission, said digital signals including new operating 
> instructions; 
> 
>   a processor operatively connected to said digital
>  detector for receiving and processing information of some of said 
> digital signals, said processor identifying those of said operating 
> instructions addressed to said processor, said processor instructing 
> said detector to detect and pass specified signals; 
> 
>   a memory 
> device operatively connected to said processor for holding operating 
> instructions addressed to said processor, said operating instructions 
> controlling the operation of said processor; and 
> 
>   said processor
>  loading said operating instructions that are addressed to said 
> processor into said memory device to thereby reprogram said processor, 
> said operating instructions including instructions to cause said 
> processor to cause said detector to detect different signals.
> 
> =====
> 
> That's probably not what you would consider a description of what an IMP
> does.   It was a bit of a leap to go from that description to the IMP
> software, and unlikely that any old documentation would make the argument.
> 
> Every word matters, and every word is a subject of argument, sometimes
> for years.
> E.g., what is "memory"?  Is it just RAM?  If a device has any ROM, does
> that mean it doesn't qualify since it can't be reprogrammed?   What is
> the difference between "programming" and "reprogramming"?
> 
> Also, a jury trial was expected.  Imagine 12 people, plus a gaggle of
> lawyers, and a judge, none of whom understand much about computers at
> all.  Yet they make the decisions.   That's why a demo was a goal - it's
> much easier to show something happening than to convince someone that
> some old document proves it happened long ago.
> 
> /Jack
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/12/21 8:21 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > Thanks for the story, Jack.
> >
> > Given how much of a believer in good public documentation i am, however curious:
> >
> > Was the functionality in question well enough publically documented with
> > according early dates ? I suspect not befcause i would be surprised if the documentation
> > would not have been good enough, if it existed. After all, most patents are also graanted
> > without evidence that they work, so its patenting of concept, not evidence
> > thereof (which might have been different in decades before my time though..).
> >
> > Cheers
> >     Toerless
> >
> > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 05:44:19PM -0700, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> >> In 2012-2013, I got involved as an Expert Witness in one of those huge
> >> patent lawsuits, which had by then been going through the legal process
> >> for about 30 years (!!).  One of the lessons learned was that although
> >> documentation is useful, the most valuable evidence is physical. 
> >>
> >> In this case, I noticed (and amazingly remembered) that the ARPANET IMP
> >> program was a viable example of relevant "prior art", which is the holy
> >> grail in patent battles.   The ARPANET did what the patent covered, and
> >> did it well before the patent was filed.  But proving that such an idea
> >> was actually implemented and used almost 40 years earlier was the
> >> necessary task.
> >>
> >> A huge effort ensued, driven by the lawyers and their clients, trying to
> >> find an old IMP and make it operable again, so that the "prior art"
> >> behavior could be demonstrated at trial before a jury.   No actual IMP
> >> was unearthed (at least one that could still operate), but an early-70s
> >> listing of the IMP software had survived in a basement.   After a lot
> >> more effort, that old software was brought back to life, running on an
> >> emulator of the old Honeywell 316 computer that was used as an IMP.
> >>
> >> The particular behavior of the IMP that demonstrated the prior art was
> >> apparently never described in the documentation.   It only could be
> >> proven by looking at the code itself.  The old saying "The documentation
> >> is in the code" was exactly correct.
> >>
> >> Bottom line - don't just think about documents, which can be
> >> insufficient to prove that something actually existed.   Software, and
> >> even hardware, is even better, at least for some patent fights.   It
> >> captures parts of history that never got into words.
> >>
> >> For the curious, there's a good description of the "ARPANET
> >> Resurrection" here:
> >>
> >> https://walden-family.com/impcode/imp-code.pdf
> >>
> >> Look around page 33.   Also see https://walden-family.com/impcode/
> >>
> >> /Jack Haverty
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/12/21 4:22 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote:
> >>> To put Karls conerns into a maybe easier understood (but theoretical) example for those on the list that have not been involved in practical instances of the problem:
> >>>
> >>> - printed public/user product documentation from 2000 gets thrown out 15 years later because
> >>>   of "we need to get rid of all this old junk", maybe because of refurnishing offices.
> >>> - half a year later, a lawsuit with such a "bogus" patent that was filed in 2002 ensues.
> >>> - Obviously, the 2000 public/user product documentation would exactly show the patent
> >>>   claim to be "bogus" because the public documentation from 2000 explains exactly the same
> >>>   thing the patent filed in 2002 claimed to be novel.
> >>> - Online web page of the prior art product of course did not keep old version information reaching
> >>>   that far back, and even if it would have, it would not have date information on it, but only
> >>>   version numbers.
> >>>
> >>> These type of things easily happen in multi-million dollar lawsuits over and over.
> >>>
> >>> Going forwarding, IMHO, the best solution for e.g.: IETF documentation would be:
> >>>
> >>> a) have all data such as all of datatracker and IETF mailing list archive in an easy mirrored access form,
> >>>    which i think we do not have, at least i have not found it, only for some subset of our data.
> >>>
> >>> b) Have multiple, independent of each other mirrors around the world that would create
> >>>    signed/dated certificates for the hashes of each mirrored document - and keep old
> >>>    (versions of) documents and their signatures even when they would be deleted/changed on the origin site.
> >>>
> >>>    Maybe those mirrors cost money, but IMHO worth it. especially for stuff like IETF whose overall
> >>>    volume on disk is laughable small. And this becam standard tooling, folks like CHM should be
> >>>    ideal places for such mirroring.
> >>>
> >>> Without something equivalent to a/b i fear it is way too easy to create fake evidence for anything,
> >>> and the "evidence" may not hold up as well court as  the "good old printed evidence".
> >>>
> >>> This "creation time" tracking in a more trustworthy fashion will of course not
> >>> work retroactively, which is why it would be even more important to understand the value of
> >>> doing this now, so someone starts doing it for the benefit of future bogus lawsuits for
> >>> stuff we start working on now. Especially given how paper already has disappeared as more
> >>> reliable evidence.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>>     Toerless
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 03:12:43PM -0700, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
> >>>> I have also been highly concerned about the tendency of modern tech history
> >>>> to erase its own records.
> >>>>
> >>>> My concern may, however, be in a different direction.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am concerned about the growth of specious patents.  There are a lot of
> >>>> patent trolls out there who buy-up weak patents that got past the relatively
> >>>> lax patent examiners in the US and elsewere, examiners who often have no
> >>>> notion of ideas in networking or computer systems, whether embodied in
> >>>> software or hardware.
> >>>>
> >>>> By erasing our past we make it difficult to rebut these bad patents - we
> >>>> have discarded the evidence that the claims of those patents are neither
> >>>> novel nor non-obvious.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think that over the last few years the IETF has done a spectacular job of
> >>>> organizing and tracking the RFC series.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, we still have a tendency to forget the old when the newer, shinier
> >>>> thing comes along.
> >>>>
> >>>> We should strive to make sure that our past is recorded.  And we ought to
> >>>> consider legal evidentiary requirements so that one who is challenging
> >>>> specious patents is not blocked by the complexities of the rules of
> >>>> evidence.
> >>>>
> >>>> 	--karl--
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5/9/21 1:23 AM, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote:
> >>>>> Dave Crocker wrote:
> >>>>>> Saving the RFCs is obvious.  What appears to be less obvious and, IMO,
> >>>>>> is just as important in historical terms, is /all/ of the IETF-related
> >>>>>> work materials.  Drafts.  Mailing list archives.  Session notes.
> >>>>>> Everything.
> >>>>> John Day wrote:
> >>>>>> Agreed. It should go somewhere. Same for all of the other standards
> >>>>>> groups, forums, consortia, etc.
> >>>>> Re the IETF, look in:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>    https://archive-it.org/collections/11034
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A few years ago, I set up an Archive-It.org job to monitor the IETF's
> >>>>> web presence.  I was disturbed at the deliberate ephemerality of the
> >>>>> Internet-Draft ecosystem.  I had been looking back at a 10-year-old
> >>>>> effort to eliminate some ridiculous restrictions on the IPv4 address
> >>>>> space, and IETF had thrown away most of the relevant documents (though I
> >>>>> found copies elsewhere once I knew their names).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Archive-It is a service of the nonprofit Internet Archive (archive.org).
> >>>>> So, the Internet Archive's robots are now crawling (various parts of)
> >>>>> the IETF websites every week, month, and quarter, under my direction.
> >>>>> And saving the results forever, or as long as the Internet Archive and
> >>>>> the Wayback Machine exist.  Between 1998 and now it's pulled in about
> >>>>> 1.8 TB of documents, which are accessible and searchable either from the
> >>>>> above URL, or from the main Wayback Machine at web.archive.org.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The IETF websites aren't organized for archiving.  I frankly don't
> >>>>> understand their structure, so am probably missing some important
> >>>>> things, and overcollecting other things.  But at least I tried.
> >>>>> Suggestions are welcome.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just be glad the IETF is copying-friendly.  Imagine trying to archive
> >>>>> the IEEE or OSI standards development process.  Then imagine big
> >>>>> copyright lawsuits from self-serving people who tied their income
> >>>>> stream to restricting who can access the standards and the
> >>>>> standardization process.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 	John
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PS: Anyone or any institution can get an Archive-It account for roughly
> >>>>> $10K/year.  The service automates the collecting of *anything* you want
> >>>>> from the web for posterity.  (If you want them to, the Internet Archive
> >>>>> will also write copies of it on new hard drives and send them to you for
> >>>>> your own archival collection.)  About 800 institutions are customers today.
> >>>>> You can also get a low-support low-volume Archive-It Basic account for
> >>>>> $500/year.  Or get custom Digital Preservation services to improve the
> >>>>> likelihood that your own curated digital assets will survive into the
> >>>>> distant future.  See https://Archive-It.org .
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PPS: The Internet Archive's long term survival is, of course, not
> >>>>> guaranteed.  In particular, it will go through a tough transition when
> >>>>> its founder eventually dies.  What is guaranteed is that they have built
> >>>>> a corpus of useful information: Millions of books, billions of web
> >>>>> pages, hundreds of thousands of concerts, decades of saved television
> >>>>> channels, etc.  They are absorbing a lot of archival microfilm, too,
> >>>>> including genealogical and census records, magazines, etc.  This corpus
> >>>>> will likely motivate people to preserve and replicate it into being
> >>>>> useful in the distant future.  They have tried to design the technical
> >>>>> storage to encourage that result.  Does anyone here know anybody who has
> >>>>> both the money and the motivation to make a complete and ongoing copy in
> >>>>> a separately administered, separately owned organization?  That would
> >>>>> significantly mitigate the long term risk of having all the replicated
> >>>>> copies of the corpus owned by a single US nonprofit.  It would probably
> >>>>> take a bare minimum staff of 10 people to run and manage such an
> >>>>> operation, with dozens of petabytes of rotating storage in multiple data
> >>>>> centers and a large collection of (mostly free) software keeping it all
> >>>>> organized and accessible.
> >>>>>
> >>>> -- 
> >>>> Internet-history mailing list
> >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >> -- 
> >> Internet-history mailing list
> >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> 

-- 
---
tte at cs.fau.de