Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow discussion of licensing costs

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 01/20/2012 09:35 PM, Jorge Contreras wrote:
> One way would be to prohibit only "collective negotiation of disclosed
> royalty terms" or something along those lines.  Thus, discussion that
> falls short of "collective negotiation" would be allowed.

Maybe I'm too literal but I find it hard to see the difference
between a sequence of questions asking for more clarity and
collectively hassling the IPR holder to be nicer. (At least when
the clarifying questions are framed by the right kind of
subtle folks that are common around here;-)

S

>
> On 1/20/12, Stephen Farrell<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 01/20/2012 09:14 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>    - discuss licensing costs of essential patent claims associated with
>>>>>>      different technical approaches;
>>>>
>>>> This point in the strawman has lead to a disagreement.  Some say that
>>>> this should not be allowed, and they point to the policies of other SDOs
>>>> that prohibit it.  On the other side of this issue, Jorge points out that
>>>> these SDOs are being very conservative, and he says that it is not
>>>> prohibited by current antitrust and competitive laws.
>>>>
>>>> This leads me to a question: Does the IETF need to be able to include
>>>> discussion of licensing costs?  In other words, is it sufficient to
>>>> distinguish between 'royalty free' and 'not royalty free'?
>>>>
>>>> Russ
>>>>
>>>> Russ -- I'd rephrase this last question, as I believe that most people
>>>> said that mere disclosure of licensing costs did not bother them, but
>>>> some felt uncomfortable with discussion of licensing costs.  Maybe it is
>>>> most accurate to ask:
>>>>
>>>> 1.  Should disclosure of licensing terms be allowed?
>>>> 2.  Should disclosure of licensing terms be required?
>>>> 3.  If you said yes to either 1 or 2, should discussion of those
>>>> licensing costs be allowed?
>>>
>>> Jorge:
>>>
>>> The current IPR rules allow disclosure of terms.  Most organizations that
>>> do something other than the non-assert approach have chosen to commit to
>>> reasonable and non-discriminatory license.  That commitment does not
>>> actually tell us the cost.  This policy is not the place to require the
>>> disclosure of terms.  It a change is desired in that area, it ought to be
>>> discussed on the the IPR mail list.
>>>
>>> So, if terms are disclosed, do we want to allow discussion of them?
>>
>> We need to be able to understand any disclosed terms. There are
>> various IPR disclosures that have been posted that I don't
>> understand. E.g. if the terms are RF for a standard but the
>> document is informational etc.
>>
>> That kind of "discussion" needs to be allowed or else the
>> WG cannot really make a good decision.
>>
>> I don't know how to sensibly draw a line between that, and
>> what we don't want to see, e.g. haggling over the price.
>>
>> S.
>>
>>>
>>> Russ
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> antitrust-policy mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
>>
> _______________________________________________
> antitrust-policy mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
>