Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 20 January 2012 23:10 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 765C121F8587 for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:10:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 H+UtKL+FCwoF for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:10:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scss.tcd.ie (hermes.cs.tcd.ie [IPv6:2001:770:10:200:889f:cdff:fe8d:ccd2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 060F921F859A for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:10:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F0CA171CF3; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:10:00 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:user-agent:from:date:message-id:received :received:x-virus-scanned; s=cs; t=1327100999; bh=pB/J/5e6Y3JevW QxhzmxLDJdhipGpERSE/wcdS99esY=; b=cRM7Hjo0HEvZ5E6epdjM6tjR9P94Zt +RuIvWr2ZoTXC9YMVMHYLZO3Q+1db89zwePnDcSDB3VjDOy7aKZDSxJIndA/xgph YBzrmL1/Tacl0ncfrie673hjn+OVOTO++hdIGY+z+oohEKGBC1n3nh42nhTA5fMl SypR0dVEfeoLe/5yXsHPmZ8iA0zMo/FQy0Pz+/8uRbs/6zuM435INOsO+SSOOo3K bElLcV0WABuKtqdHgUxx15n1q3NY/WEu2Bk+3leewkbw4F+cw73i0lAHFvYdH8Fe LDOunAfJObuPSMRp1jlMI1yW/28I2OiEMIUrY7+KyCTT61LRfTflpC7Q==
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10027) with ESMTP id Wr0m+tZ95SyG; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:09:59 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.5] (unknown [86.41.8.14]) by smtp.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CFC6171CF1; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:09:59 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <4F19F445.7010600@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:09:57 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: david.black@emc.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> <CAP0PwYZDVF1oGdMikAkxNrx965+W-+uMS-0usRSX9sX8QMaiWg@mail.gmail.com> <4F19E563.8050506@cs.tcd.ie> <201201202218.q0KMII1j007473@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4F19EB6B.2050301@cs.tcd.ie> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05A7CF1278@MX14A.corp.emc.com> <4F19F050.3040305@cs.tcd.ie> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05A7CF127D@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05A7CF127D@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 23:10:02 -0000
On 01/20/2012 11:02 PM, david.black@emc.com wrote: >>> Excuse me, but anti-trust law applies to companies of all sizes. I'll leave finding relevant >>> case law examples to Jorge, aside from noting that Rambus may be one such example. >> >> Fair enough wrt company size. I've no idea how big Rambus >> were at the time. >> >> But my main point still applies, I believe. > > I appreciate that ... as to your main point: > >>>>>> My point is that this policy assumes that all participants can >>>>>> in principle be anti-competition which seems like nonsense to >>>>>> me. > > Hmm ... Russ's second paragraph was: > > 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. Right. "Don't be bold" is fine advice. But not really a policy. (I'd also be interested in the answer to John Levine's most recent question [1].) > An alternative to your view is that violation of such laws is detrimental not > only to those who may be responsible for the violations, but also to the effective > operation of the IETF as a whole, and I believe all IETF participants have > (or should have) an interest in the latter. Fair point. Does that need a policy (other than "Don't be bold")? S [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/antitrust-policy/current/msg00052.html > > Thanks, > --David > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: antitrust-policy-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:antitrust-policy-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Stephen Farrell >> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:53 PM >> To: Black, David >> Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests? >> >> >> >> On 01/20/2012 10:47 PM, david.black@emc.com wrote: >>>> In the absence of any relevant anti-trust + SDO + non-large >>>> company example from anywhere in the world, I disagree. >>>> >>>> I'll happily admit I'm wrong if someone has a relevant >>>> example. >>>> >>>> Building a policy that includes non-large-company employees >>>> based on nothing concrete seems wrong. >>> >>> Excuse me, but anti-trust law applies to companies of all sizes. I'll leave finding relevant >>> case law examples to Jorge, aside from noting that Rambus may be one such example. >> >> Fair enough wrt company size. I've no idea how big Rambus >> were at the time. >> >> But my main point still applies, I believe. >> >> S >> >>>> Building a policy that distinguishes between IETF participants >>>> based on the type of their employer seems wrong. >>> >>> I suggest this approach, particularly if the policy is not burdensome (e.g., a list of >>> topics that should not be discussed), as there are a significant number of IETF participants >>> whose organizations are concerned about anti-trust (e.g., employees of large companies), >>> and I would hope everyone would be interested in encouraging broad participation in the IETF. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> --David >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: antitrust-policy-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:antitrust-policy-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >>>> Stephen Farrell >>>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:32 PM >>>> To: Thomas Narten >>>> Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org; Russ Housley; Jorge Contreras >>>> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 01/20/2012 10:18 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: >>>>> Stephen Farrell<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> My point is that this policy assumes that all participants can >>>>>> in principle be anti-competition which seems like nonsense to >>>>>> me. >>>>> >>>>> Not to put too fine a point on this, but engineers with no background >>>>> in anti-trust opining "much ado about nothing, I work for XYZ which >>>>> can't possibly cause an issue" makes a good argument for why we do >>>>> need a policy. >>>> >>>> In the absence of any relevant anti-trust + SDO + non-large >>>> company example from anywhere in the world, I disagree. >>>> >>>> I'll happily admit I'm wrong if someone has a relevant >>>> example. >>>> >>>> Building a policy that includes non-large-company employees >>>> based on nothing concrete seems wrong. >>>> >>>> Building a policy that distinguishes between IETF participants >>>> based on the type of their employer seems wrong. >>>> >>>> The above two seem to be the choices here. >>>> >>>> > But it better be simple, clear and be understandable by >>>>> IETF participants. And maybe calling it a "policy" goes to far. What >>>>> we need is enough basic education about participant behavior to make >>>>> sure the IETF keeps out of trouble. >>>>> >>>>> Much as we might like to ignore IPR, anti-trust, and other >>>>> non-engineering issues, we are potentially impacted by them, and the >>>>> IETF could (if it or its participants behave stupidly), could find >>>>> itself in a Heap of Pain. >>>>> >>>>> But let's keep perspective here. Some simple guidelines, with an >>>>> understanding that if folk start going into dangerous territory that >>>>> needs to be stopped is probably about all we need. >>>> >>>> I pretty much agree with the above. But I don't see what's required >>>> that's new compared to what we already have. >>>> >>>> S. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thomas >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 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