Re: [antitrust-policy] Easy to quibble, so my strawman

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

Two things:

On 1.20.2012 16:05 , "Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>I've no idea if this is very useful but in the spirit of not
>just quibbling, here's a quick not very thoughtful strawman
>for what I think we might usefully say on this topic.

This would be an excellent starting point for an FAQ (minus the one issue
below, perhaps).  But I wonder what that insurance agent would say about
it...  the whole discussion started with an insurance agent wanted to see
paperwork, wasn't it?

>
>S.
>
>There's a thing called anti-trust in the US and competition law in
>the EU and probably other things elsewhere.  Basically, the idea
>is to prevent some companies ganging up on others and being bold.
>In theory, the IETF could get dragged into some dispute related to
>that, or to some government or regulatory investigation of that
>kind of thing. We'd rather not.
>
>So, please check that out and don't be bold.
>
>If you don't know what this means then go looking and ask your
>boss. If you don't have a boss, there's probably no damage you can
>do here if you're not a WG chair or something. If you are a WG
>chair or something then ask on the wgchairs list if you don't know
>what to do.
>
>For most IETF participants, someone in your organisation should
>understand what it means to be good about this. So start by asking
>locally.
>
>But remember, for the IETF its the technical content that matters
>most, not all this policy stuff.
>
>Need examples?
>
>- A bunch of companies having a secret meeting where they agree to
>promote or try kill some Internet-draft for non-technical reason
>would be a bad thing here.

What a bunch of companies do in a _secret_ meeting may or may not be
anticompetitive, but it certainly does not concern the IETF.  As I
understand it, the goal of this exercise is not to prevent companies or
participants from being stupid (in non-IETF settings).

>
>- Saying that a WG should only work on an I-D if an IPR
>declaration's terms are changed to 1% of net revenue would not be
>appropriate.
>
>- It is ok to say "I don't understand your IPR declaration - what
>does <that bit> mean?" But its not ok to haggle with the IPR
>holder.
>
>A mixture of common sense, reading about the topic and checking
>with any local bosses should get you to where you know what's
>appropriate and what's not.
>
>If not, then ask. Send a mail to [e-mail] and you
>may get an answer. (It won't be legal advice or anything but it
>might help.)
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>antitrust-policy mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy