Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification for draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-08.txt

Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org> Wed, 06 March 2024 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <jay@staff.ietf.org>
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 8FC51C14F610 for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:40:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=staff-ietf-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a49oozsSTDa2 for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:40:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x331.google.com (mail-wm1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::331]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94CFBC14F5EE for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:40:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x331.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-412f692be21so4692575e9.2 for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Mar 2024 06:40:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=staff-ietf-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1709736017; x=1710340817; darn=ietf.org; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DaN3g/u9JeNrdosrJEAPakwN/NwNWxXlLkGIZVnwAaQ=; b=s67V0q9IX06oCj6n77emq6EHAIwi03ozNJzzZQGr//OzOapIZlRN9gYef/3iuZVb26 NGepru4bn6K5DO2l38OE0So0+DdNQvIkZ5HO0XBN50O35E3O4DTLviDpOYWkeV8RHCJN pupuId6soWLwFwNNoCLDsS05rHGOWbuLaLzgHosVDxFNQOTFkWOuSvZTJrTqGn0TRuBk R9Go9OXR7v8X9WMGlknQIMY9imlgySs3a/f60JkInc80Yqhmu24B2l9Ssrn4YhcqZZDY 5KhfsJwdbc5mcyl5+EjWGEZIybEcuDoHwjaeJT8+Vjms+Id/2+hnx3Eg16wuN7MC5B3H gf6w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1709736017; x=1710340817; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DaN3g/u9JeNrdosrJEAPakwN/NwNWxXlLkGIZVnwAaQ=; b=xSPmvZ1ZpqjP3Xe5ZtLvZjWiSlN/vauyeh1/jKciKNKK9majR/CmMvY0lXg7xy9Jf7 nOqpsfAQmO3+1m3218zi42AugtcNKKNVB50V6iC7YsuqDkSAlwO42x0clRgPtFAyHu/B QEBAiiSuguyXKpBLERGVdlYYk1Bq+mu8liZSdghGMtg3sppC2jmgKVIFVb571oabmSPE V+nHTJrUGAaNussXjuvooOLLM7B/bJKZTnnz6UZ8owzacCwJpZ1AGe3OQACXHJJihzUT dK+kUfPxl77Gy/cqPxLg+8lCGLGVhW2QcrzBh/2LczdF2MR8zSKzJeurk1633MRKtbJe rrHg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxJCaHcY4qUYJYQdO4amd1ulFLuLgFZeFsFZwpJfeBR0A5KoHch 7NRGhxkte4oh8JhWAjGBsTHWtjUT5rMZmjMOKdzu+V86SvgmGNZ+9hPIqvrFiuMRQQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH+xky8L1kTVr4Uk7xi1hvnARuUaUqCNs5dCNXtEaimtT4vbGf1DRevpjn2n8Y5+3BA1O/J7w==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:ef8f:0:b0:33d:63c0:3b7f with SMTP id d15-20020adfef8f000000b0033d63c03b7fmr10680228wro.42.1709736017521; Wed, 06 Mar 2024 06:40:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (host-92-27-125-209.static.as13285.net. [92.27.125.209]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bj25-20020a0560001e1900b0033e49aebafasm4729505wrb.3.2024.03.06.06.40.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Mar 2024 06:40:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <DDFC7ADB-760A-4899-87D2-5DEB52307491@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FDC6E283-56AA-4436-99AD-C1D8E060A536"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.400.31\))
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:40:06 +0000
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR19MB40453C8016DCA9567614A04183212@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: "antitrust-policy@ietf.org" <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
To: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
References: <170924133688.22191.501196370379528149@ietfa.amsl.com> <1AE485F0-0DD8-4D0B-9581-1F3B2B3ABAA2@staff.ietf.org> <MN2PR19MB404529B1B9485A99BB39ABEC83232@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <18901D0C-D1F0-4B06-9CE3-E7A59C85D362@ietf.org> <MN2PR19MB40453C8016DCA9567614A04183212@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.400.31)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/antitrust-policy/B91YzekwdiT2EhKeHayNa9Q-QlU>
Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification for draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-08.txt
X-BeenThere: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:40:21 -0000

Hi David

> On 6 Mar 2024, at 03:56, Black, David <David.Black@dell.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jay,
> 
>>> E.g., in a new paragraph at the end of Section 4.2 (Obtaining Independent Legal Advice):
>>> 
>>>  Participants are specifically encouraged to obtain independent legal advice before engaging in activities that involve complex and subtle areas
>>>  of antitrust law and regulations, e.g., use of unpublished market data to inform decisions and discussion of IPR licensing terms and conditions with IPR owners.
>>> 
>>> That would provide a useful warning to participants without getting into the details of exactly which activities are ok vs. not ok.
>>> I've deliberately generalized both topics in the above "e.g." list, and additional topics could be added.
>> 
>> This is basically what that section was aiming to say - watch out with these areas.  Unfortunately, it has not been possible to identify
>> *any* agreed text that can be used for this purpose.  For example, the text I used and that you reproduced "unpublished market data"
>> is considered by some to be completely missing the point and therefore more harmful than helpful.  
> 
> Then drop the "unpublished market data" example.  I think it would still be helpful if "discussion of IPR licensing terms and conditions with IPR owners" is used by itself an example where consulting with counsel is encouraged.

"IPR (licensing) terms" has exactly the same problems - there are times when it is not an antitrust risk and so even this mentioning it leads to confusion and mis-interpretation around the boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not.

Jay

> 
> Thanks, --David
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org> 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 4:10 AM
> To: Black, David <David.Black@dell.com>
> Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org; Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification for draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-08.txt
> 
> 
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL] 
> 
> Hi David
> 
> Thanks for that - response below:
> 
>> On 4 Mar 2024, at 16:13, Black, David <David.Black@dell.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Jay,
>> 
>>> The only substantive change is that the previous section "Topics requiring caution" has now been deleted.
>>> In the previous version of this I-D, this section covered two areas: 
>>> the first began "Using unpublished market data to evaluate the 
>>> relative implementation costs" and the second was "Entering into potentially discriminatory, group negotiations of IPR terms".
>>> These are both complex areas where some behaviours are an antitrust 
>>> risk and some are not, but it has become clear that explaining where 
>>> the difference lies is not possible and all attempts so far have confused people and led to mis-interpretation.
>>> 
>>> We understand that some on this list wanted this explained, while others wanted this whole section deleted, but after much discussion we concluded that deletion was our only option.
>> 
>> Would it be reasonable to recognize the complexity and subtlety of those topics by mentioning them (or generalized versions of them) as specific areas in which independent legal advice is recommended?  That would send people with doubts/questions about them to the experts (e.g., anti-trust lawyers), which is what I think we'd like to see happen.  E.g., in a new paragraph at the end of Section 4.2 (Obtaining Independent Legal Advice):
>> 
>>  Participants are specifically encouraged to obtain independent legal advice before engaging in activities that involve complex and subtle areas
>>  of antitrust law and regulations, e.g., use of unpublished market data to inform decisions and discussion of IPR licensing terms and conditions with IPR owners.
>> 
>> That would provide a useful warning to participants without getting into the details of exactly which activities are ok vs. not ok.  I've deliberately generalized both topics in the above "e.g." list, and additional topics could be added.
> 
> This is basically what that section was aiming to say - watch out with these areas.  Unfortunately, it has not been possible to identify *any* agreed text that can be used for this purpose.  For example, the text I used and that you reproduced "unpublished market data" is considered by some to be completely missing the point and therefore more harmful than helpful.  
> 
> cheers
> Jay
> 
> --
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> exec-director@ietf.org
> 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
exec-director@ietf.org