Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 01/20/2012 11:02 PM, [e-mail] 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>> Stephen Farrell
>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:53 PM
>> To: Black, David
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01/20/2012 10:47 PM, [e-mail] 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>>> Stephen Farrell
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:32 PM
>>>> To: Thomas Narten
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; 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<[e-mail]>    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
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> antitrust-policy mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
>