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

On 01/20/2012 10:47 PM, david.black@emc.com wrote:
>> In the absence of any relevant anti-trust + SDO + non-large
>> company example from anywhere in the world, I disagree.
>>
>> I'll happily admit I'm wrong if someone has a relevant
>> example.
>>
>> Building a policy that includes non-large-company employees
>> based on nothing concrete seems wrong.
>
> Excuse me, but anti-trust law applies to companies of all sizes.  I'll leave finding relevant
> case law examples to Jorge, aside from noting that Rambus may be one such example.

Fair enough wrt company size. I've no idea how big Rambus
were at the time.

But my main point still applies, I believe.

S

>> Building a policy that distinguishes between IETF participants
>> based on the type of their employer seems wrong.
>
> I suggest this approach, particularly if the policy is not burdensome (e.g., a list of
> topics that should not be discussed), as there are a significant number of IETF participants
> whose organizations are concerned about anti-trust (e.g., employees of large companies),
> and I would hope everyone would be interested in encouraging broad participation in the IETF.
>
> Thanks,
> --David
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: antitrust-policy-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:antitrust-policy-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Stephen Farrell
>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:32 PM
>> To: Thomas Narten
>> Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org; Russ Housley; Jorge Contreras
>> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01/20/2012 10:18 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
>>> Stephen Farrell<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>   writes:
>>>
>>>> My point is that this policy assumes that all participants can
>>>> in principle be anti-competition which seems like nonsense to
>>>> me.
>>>
>>> Not to put too fine a point on this, but engineers with no background
>>> in anti-trust opining "much ado about nothing, I work for XYZ which
>>> can't possibly cause an issue" makes a good argument for why we do
>>> need a policy.
>>
>> In the absence of any relevant anti-trust + SDO + non-large
>> company example from anywhere in the world, I disagree.
>>
>> I'll happily admit I'm wrong if someone has a relevant
>> example.
>>
>> Building a policy that includes non-large-company employees
>> based on nothing concrete seems wrong.
>>
>> Building a policy that distinguishes between IETF participants
>> based on the type of their employer seems wrong.
>>
>> The above two seem to be the choices here.
>>
>>   >  But it better be simple, clear and be understandable by
>>> IETF participants. And maybe calling it a "policy" goes to far. What
>>> we need is enough basic education about participant behavior to make
>>> sure the IETF keeps out of trouble.
>>>
>>> Much as we might like to ignore IPR, anti-trust, and other
>>> non-engineering issues, we are potentially impacted by them, and the
>>> IETF could (if it or its participants behave stupidly), could find
>>> itself in a Heap of Pain.
>>>
>>> But let's keep perspective here. Some simple guidelines, with an
>>> understanding that if folk start going into dangerous territory that
>>> needs to be stopped is probably about all we need.
>>
>> I pretty much agree with the above. But I don't see what's required
>> that's new compared to what we already have.
>>
>> S.
>>
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> antitrust-policy mailing list
>> antitrust-policy@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
>
> _______________________________________________
> antitrust-policy mailing list
> antitrust-policy@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
>