Re: [antitrust-policy] I-D Action: draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-05.txt

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 11/03/2023 18:55, Joel Halpern wrote:
> Pete's email (retained below) has a specific quote from the document and 
> specific proposed replacement text.   That is what I was asking for 
> feedback from those with concerns.

Ah sorry, hadn't got that. I think Pete's suggested
text is an improvement yes.

FWIW though, I didn't see that my comments as to OSS
(zero price) and supply chain attacks had been addressed
in the latest version, so I'm not at a point of being
in love with the overall text as yet:-)

S.

> 
> Yours,
> 
> Joel
> 
> On 3/11/2023 9:17 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>> Hi Joel,
>>
>> On 11/03/2023 07:43, Joel Halpern wrote:
>>> If that change to the bullet (to become "entering into ..." resolves 
>>> the objections, then I am happy to make that change.   I would like 
>>> to hear from those who have been expressing disagreement with the 
>>> bullet.
>>
>> I suspect you might be better to post OLD/NEW text or
>> a PR if there's a git repo - since the problems I and
>> maybe others are having with the text in 4.x seems to
>> mainly be related to over-broad descriptions of dodgy
>> situations that ends up also possibly covering things
>> that are just not dodgy, having replacement text is a
>> good plan.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> S.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>>
>>> Joel
>>>
>>> On 3/11/2023 12:36 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10 Mar 2023, at 19:46, Joel Halpern wrote:
>>>>
>>>>       * Seeking clarifications about IPR disclosures, in a context
>>>>         when any such clarifications could be reasonably perceived as
>>>>         entering into group negotiations of IPR terms.
>>>>
>>>> The comma there is grammatically incorrect and, while that seems 
>>>> like an editorial nit, maybe that's what's causing the hiccup for 
>>>> me. Try this:
>>>>
>>>>   * Entering into group negotiations of IPR terms or any discussion
>>>>     that could be reasonably perceived as doing so.
>>>>
>>>> "Seeking clarifications about IPR disclosures" is an not a problem 
>>>> and putting it separately as the first clause of the bullet makes it 
>>>> seem like that alone needs to be done with caution. It's only when 
>>>> the discussion turns to negotiating IPR terms (or things that smell 
>>>> like that) that problems come up. If you say the above instead, it 
>>>> would cause me less heartburn.
>>>>
>>>> I also agree with Stephan's point about restructuring 4.1 as a 
>>>> bullet list. Right now, even though the intro phrase says "These 
>>>> topics include", some of the things in the list are not topics; some 
>>>> are "discussions" and some only are problematic if the discussion of 
>>>> the topic is is among competitors. Rewriting this as a bullet list 
>>>> and making sure the actor is identified would help clarify for me.
>>>>
>>>> pr
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
>>>> All connections to the world are tenuous at best
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> antitrust-policy mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy