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

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

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
>