Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Fri, 20 January 2012 21:51 UTC
Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AFC521F8523 for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:51:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KT8N7snaVf7C for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:51:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3799F21F8514 for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:51:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67425F2409E; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:52:04 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BRHALPq4TmtY; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:51:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.2.104] (pool-96-241-165-215.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.241.165.215]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CB0CF2406B; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:52:03 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F19DFCF.7090608@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:51:42 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F17045EC-DCC6-4CAA-847A-4829B81A4569@vigilsec.com>
References: <20120110205143.6FDCF21F86F9@ietfa.amsl.com> <A44BB68F-19AB-462B-8A65-ACA855EA2ED1@vigilsec.com> <DE7B7ADC-F160-4633-8FD0-8453573D9830@vigilsec.com> <4F19DFCF.7090608@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
X-BeenThere: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss the need for an antitrust or competition policy for the IETF." <antitrust-policy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/antitrust-policy>, <mailto:antitrust-policy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/antitrust-policy>
List-Post: <mailto:antitrust-policy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:antitrust-policy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy>, <mailto:antitrust-policy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 21:51:49 -0000
I am aware of patents held by individuals that happen to work at Universities. I see them as single-person companies. I am aware of a situation when one such person earned at least $1M USD in a single year from royalties. So, I do not think University status is a 'get out of jail free' card. Russ On Jan 20, 2012, at 4:42 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > I have no skin in the money games around the IETF these > days since I currently work in a University. > > The same is true of a bunch of IETF participants of > various kinds, at various times over the duration of their > participation. > > Why can't I just ignore all this, since I'm not being > anti-competitive even if I do some of these supposedly > bad things? > > If (as I believe) I basically can, in terms of the > various known competition/anti-trust laws, then this > putative policy would cause us to be distinguishing > between IETF participants on the basis of their > employers (or lack thereof) which I think is a bad > thing. > > As it happens, since I've currently got an IETF management > hat, I don't believe that I am currently able to ignore > the kinds of constraint. Read the above as if I had no > such hat. I also believe that one shouldn't do some of > these things since it'd be dumb. But that's also beside > the point. > > S > > On 01/15/2012 08:38 PM, Russ Housley wrote: >> >>> Based on the length of this thread, it is clear to me that more discussion is needed, but I do not think that the IETF mail list is the place to have it. So, the antitrust-policy mail list has been set up to continue the discussion. >>> >>> It is clear to me that many people are questioning what would go in such a policy. I have been working on a strawman. It is short, but it answers the question about what topics would be covered. I will post that strawman to the antitrust-policy mail list for discussion from two perspectives. First, does the IETF want to adopt an antitrust policy. Second, the strawman will provide the basis for a conversation on the content of such a policy if the consensus is that the IETF wants to adopt one. >>> >>> I'll wait a few days so that people have time to join the antitrust-policy mail list before the discussion begins. >> >> >> When I announced this mail list, I said that i would post a strawman to answer the question about what such a policy would include. Here it is. >> >> Russ >> >> === === === === === >> >> Existing IETF process and procedures were specifically designed to avoid >> problems with antitrust and competition laws. The IETF has an open >> decision process, explicit rules for intellectual property, and a >> well-defined appeals process. All of these contribute to the robust >> standards development process used by the IETF. >> >> Yet, it is worth reminding all IETF participants that all IETF meetings, >> including virtual meetings, shall be conducted in compliance with all >> applicable laws, including antitrust and competition laws. >> >> Some participants at IETF meetings are undoubtedly employed by >> competitors of the employers of other IETF meeting participants. >> Accordingly, IETF meeting participants are expected to avoid even >> the appearance of impropriety. >> >> IETF meeting participants MUST NOT: >> >> - discuss product prices, product profits, internal product cost, >> bidding, terms of bidding, allocation of customers, division of >> sales markets, sales territories, or marketing strategies; >> >> - condition or discuss conditioning the implementation of an IETF >> specification on the implementer’s use of products or services from >> a particular supplier; >> >> - discuss agreements to collectively refuse or conditionally refuse to >> do business with a particular supplier; >> >> - suggest any action for the purpose of giving one company or a few >> companies significant competitive advantage over others; >> >> - present or exchange proprietary information; or >> >> - share non-public status or substance of ongoing or threatened >> litigation. >> >> All IETF meeting participants MUST disclose patents or patent >> applications reasonably and personally known to them. Please >> review the IETF IPR rules in RFC 3979. >> >> IETF meeting participants MAY: >> >> - discuss technical considerations of any proposals, including relative >> costs to implement, operate, and support them; >> >> - discuss licensing costs of essential patent claims associated with >> different technical approaches; >> >> - discuss the likelihood that adoption of a particular technical >> approach would subject implementers to a greater or lesser risk of >> patent litigation; >> >> - discuss or present broad market potential or market requirements for >> informational purposes. >> >> If you observe behavior in violation of these guidelines at an IETF >> meeting, please do not be silent; formally object. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> antitrust-policy mailing list >> antitrust-policy@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy >> > _______________________________________________ > antitrust-policy mailing list > antitrust-policy@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
- [antitrust-policy] New Non-WG Mailing List: antit… IETF Secretariat
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Russ Housley
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Russ Housley
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Jorge Contreras
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Jorge Contreras
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Jorge Contreras
- [antitrust-policy] Proprietary information [An An… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Proprietary information [A… Jorge Contreras
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Rigo Wenning
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Jorge Contreras
- [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow discussi… Russ Housley
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow disc… Jorge Contreras
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow disc… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow disc… Russ Housley
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow disc… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow disc… Jorge Contreras
- [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those wit… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Jorge Contreras
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Russ Housley
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow disc… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow disc… Jorge Contreras
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Thomas Narten
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow disc… Thomas Narten
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Jorge Contreras
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Thomas Narten
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow disc… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… david.black
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… david.black
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… david.black
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… david.black
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] back to what problem are w… John Levine
- Re: [antitrust-policy] back to what problem are w… George Willingmyre
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Rigo Wenning
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Jorge Contreras
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… John Levine
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… david.black
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… John Levine
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… david.black
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Rigo Wenning