Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sun, 15 January 2012 22:37 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 A097521F84B9 for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:37:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.35
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.35 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.574, BAYES_05=-1.11, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 6DJhgCsFpGIZ for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:37:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 483D321F849C for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:37:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb1.tigertech.net (mailb1.tigertech.net [208.80.4.153]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06A0FA3783 for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:37:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5430FD407CA; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:37:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mailb1.tigertech.net
Received: from [10.10.10.101] (pool-71-161-51-85.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.51.85]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9306ED4069A; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:37:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F135514.6000705@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:37:08 -0500
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jorge Contreras <cntreras@gmail.com>
References: <20120110205143.6FDCF21F86F9@ietfa.amsl.com> <A44BB68F-19AB-462B-8A65-ACA855EA2ED1@vigilsec.com> <DE7B7ADC-F160-4633-8FD0-8453573D9830@vigilsec.com> <4F1342D8.50002@joelhalpern.com> <CAP0PwYZFeayxRk0YwHaotHp8vwS8wOwAcYgagP1=WUu+guJ=xA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP0PwYZFeayxRk0YwHaotHp8vwS8wOwAcYgagP1=WUu+guJ=xA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for the IETF
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: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:37:12 -0000

I am glad to hear that company disclosures of terms are being looked at 
favorably.  But that was not the question I was trying to emphasis.

I have seen, repeatedly, companies state licensing terms for disclosed 
IPR, and WGs which are unhappy with those terms.  So far, so good.  that 
is reality.
What I have seen people get tempted to do is for the WG to attempt to 
persuade the company to change the licensing terms.  That, it seems to 
me, is a very different kettle of fish.  If the understanding of the law 
(probably due to judges) in that regard has changed, I would welcome 
being told taht.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/15/2012 5:32 PM, Jorge Contreras wrote:
>     The other piece that I have been told is important, that is missing
>     from the prohibited lists is that the IETF MUST NOT engage in
>     negotiating licensing terms.  The lawyers have told us repeatedly
>     that such would be dangerous behavior.
>
>     Yours,
>     Joel
>
>
> Joel -- the law in this area is evolving and lawyers' stated positions
> sometimes vary based on their companies' business strategies and their
> clients wishes.  I have advised the IAOC that (1) the IETF, per se,
> should not engage in licensing negotiations (meaning that the IESG, IAOC
> and other bodies that are collectively representing the IETF community),
> but that (2) individual companies MAY disclose and discuss licensing
> terms in the context of IETF activities.  Not all lawyers will agree
> with point (2), and some will disagree with vehemence.  However, you
> should know that the US Dept. of Justice and Federal Trade Commission
> have both viewed required "ex ante" disclosures of licensing terms in
> SDOs with favor (or, at least, without disfavor).  I would be happy to
> discuss in greater detail with you, and also invite any interested
> lawyers to the discussion.
>
> Regards,
> Jorge
>