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

[Rigo Wenning <[e-mail]>]

Hi all, 

I think concerning this University topic, you're talking past each other IMHO. 
While it may not make sense to exclude certain actors in the policy, some 
actors may really not be affected at all. 
In Europe, most of the University and research is publicly organized. 
Sometimes with a corporation owned by the government. This actor, by 
definition, has a regulated monopoly. And they normally do not sell products to 
the market. 
Anti-trust (competition law) is to avoid collusion between actors to the 
detriment of the consumer. As someone from DG Competition put it in some 
meeting in Brussels: 
"Every time people from different companies of the same market segment come 
together, we are nervous. Standardization is actually good for competition. 
But it has to be open and transparent so that everybody sees that the venue is 
not abused to shorten the competition." 

This says several things: 

1/ The IETF is very open and transparent. This is already 95% of your anti-
trust policy IMHO. If people are organizing their collusion in public and 
anti-competition forces see that, they get in trouble. Perhaps some guidelines 
for SME's not having a legal department would be good, but a full policy with 
formalisms should only be put in place after discussion with the competition 
authorities would be my suggestion from the outside.

2/ Hidden and secret meetings can be organized everywhere at every time. The 
difference is, whether the IETF is furthering such secret meetings to create 
secret agreements. This goes back into point 1/ as to how well the process is 
followed and whether there can be ways around the transparency in the process. 

Best, 

Rigo

P.S. We talked to the anti-trust authorities when we established our patent 
policy and they told us there are no worries. So it is good to ask them 
questions like "is our process transparent enough?" They may just say "yes".

On Friday 20 January 2012 16:48:51 Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Stephen Farrell
> 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > I have no skin in the money games around the IETF these
> > days since I currently work in a University.
> > 
> > The same is true of a bunch of IETF participants of
> > various kinds, at various times over the duration of their
> > participation.
> > 
> > Why can't I just ignore all this, since I'm not being
> > anti-competitive even if I do some of these supposedly
> > bad things?
> 
> I am not a lawyer, but I don't think that the IETF should be in the
> business of making these distinctions. Would it matter, for example,
> if
> you worked at a University that aggressively licensed their patents
> for money ? That participated in licensing agencies such as MPEG-LA ?
> What if your university was for-profit ? It is not the job of the IETF
> to decide whether your University is "in the game" or not.
> 
> Regards
> Marshall
> 
> > If (as I believe) I basically can, in terms of the
> > various known competition/anti-trust laws, then this
> > putative policy would cause us to be distinguishing
> > between IETF participants on the basis of their
> > employers (or lack thereof) which I think is a bad
> > thing.
> > 
> > As it happens, since I've currently got an IETF management
> > hat, I don't believe that I am currently able to ignore
> > the kinds of constraint. Read the above as if I had no
> > such hat. I also believe that one shouldn't do some of
> > these things since it'd be dumb. But that's also beside
> > the point.
> > 
> > S
> > 
> > On 01/15/2012 08:38 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> >>> Based on the length of this thread, it is clear to me that more
> >>> discussion is needed, but I do not think that the IETF mail list is
> >>> the
> >>> place to have it.  So, the antitrust-policy mail list has been set
> >>> up to continue the discussion.
> >>> 
> >>> It is clear to me that many people are questioning what would go in
> >>> such a policy.  I have been working on a strawman.  It is short,
> >>> but it answers the question about what topics would be covered.  I
> >>> will post that strawman to the antitrust-policy mail list for
> >>> discussion from two perspectives. First, does the IETF want to
> >>> adopt an antitrust policy.  Second, the strawman will provide the
> >>> basis for a conversation on the content of such a policy if the
> >>> consensus is that the IETF wants to adopt one.
> >>> 
> >>> I'll wait a few days so that people have time to join the
> >>> antitrust-policy mail list before the discussion begins.
> >> 
> >> When I announced this mail list, I said that i would post a strawman
> >> to
> >> answer the question about what such a policy would include.  Here it
> >> is.
> >> 
> >> Russ
> >> 
> >> === === === === ===
> >> 
> >> Existing IETF process and procedures were specifically designed to
> >> avoid
> >> problems with antitrust and competition laws.  The IETF has an open
> >> decision process, explicit rules for intellectual property, and a
> >> well-defined appeals process.  All of these contribute to the robust
> >> standards development process used by the IETF.
> >> 
> >> 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.
> >> 
> >> Some participants at IETF meetings are undoubtedly employed by
> >> competitors of the employers of other IETF meeting participants.
> >> Accordingly, IETF meeting participants are expected to avoid  even
> >> the appearance of impropriety.
> >> 
> >> IETF meeting participants MUST NOT:
> >> 
> >>  - discuss product prices, product profits, internal product cost,
> >>    bidding, terms of bidding, allocation of customers, division of
> >>    sales markets, sales territories, or marketing strategies;
> >> 
> >>  - condition or discuss conditioning the implementation of an IETF
> >>    specification on the implementer’s use of products or services from
> >>    a particular supplier;
> >> 
> >>  - discuss agreements to collectively refuse or conditionally refuse
> >> to
> >>    do business with a particular supplier;
> >> 
> >>  - suggest any action for the purpose of giving one company or a few
> >>    companies significant competitive advantage over others;
> >> 
> >>  - present or exchange proprietary information; or
> >> 
> >>  - share non-public status or substance of ongoing or threatened
> >>    litigation.
> >> 
> >> All IETF meeting participants MUST disclose patents or patent
> >> applications reasonably and personally known to them.  Please
> >> review the IETF IPR rules in RFC 3979.
> >> 
> >> IETF meeting participants MAY:
> >> 
> >>  - discuss technical considerations of any proposals, including
> >> relative
> >>    costs to implement, operate, and support them;
> >> 
> >>  - discuss licensing costs of essential patent claims associated with
> >>    different technical approaches;
> >> 
> >>   - discuss the likelihood that adoption of a particular technical
> >>     approach would subject implementers to a greater or lesser risk of
> >>     patent litigation;
> >> 
> >>   - discuss or present broad market potential or market requirements
> >> for
> >>     informational purposes.
> >> 
> >> If you observe behavior in violation of these guidelines at an IETF
> >> meeting, please do not be silent; formally object.
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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