Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification for draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-06.txt

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,
Not sure why I jump into this fray during my vacation, but here it goes :-)
Stephan


From: Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, August 25, 2023 at 15:45
To: Jay Daley <[e-mail]>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>, Jorge Contreras <[e-mail]>, Brad Biddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification for draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-06.txt


On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 5:22 AM Jay Daley <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:



On 25 Aug 2023, at 12:41, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


Hiya,

On 25/08/2023 11:31, Jay Daley wrote:

 * Using/unpublished/  market data to evaluate the relative
implementation costs of/alternative technical proposals/  to decide
whether one is significantly more feasible in the market and thus
a better candidate for standardization.

FWIW, I don't think that's an improvement. We often
get reports that someone reports x% failures with a
new mechanism without them publishing the underlying
data, and we often do, and should, act on those if
they're credible (which they mostly are in my
experience).

Maybe the problem is the phrase "market data"? Is
that meant to include/exclude e.g. reports that
trials have found that a new TLS extension causes
some deployed implementations to misbehave?

As I understand it, what you are describing is technical data, not market data, which is commercial information (sales, prices, etc) but I’m sure others will correct me if I’m wrong.

So this would preclude "We called patent holder X and the royalty fee they wanted to charge was prohibitive?"

-Ekr


If a WG chair would try to shut me up based on Ekr’s or Stephen’s examples, I would call out that misinterpretation of the term “detailed market data”.  If the chair weren’t giving in, the IESG would hear about it.  If the IESG were unresponsive: well, I have never filed an IETF appeal, but in that case, I would.

On the other hand, I would leave the room screaming (and surely I would not be alone, and surely the WG chair permitting such action would hear very clear words) if someone were to argue “we sell x1 million of our y1-thousand$$$ products, and we prefer the A technology even if we were quoted z $$$ per unit for a patent license which well fits our overhead allowances”, and someone else jumps in and argues “well we sell x2 of our y2 products which is substantially cheaper than yours, and for us the A technology would be cost prohibitive as our markup/profit is smaller than yours, and therefore we prefer the B technology”.

The former is not unpublished detailed market data.  The latter is.

And no, we don’t need examples, nor should we try to codify every single conceivable corner case.  We are all grown-ups here (or should be) and can make our own decisions of what’s a sensible interpretation for the term “detailed market data”.  Occasionally we may err, on either side of the risk/benefit equation, and that will be called out.  The IETF is well prepared to deal with such situations.

S.

Jay



Ta,
S.
<OpenPGP_0xE4D8E9F997A833DD.asc>

--
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

_______________________________________________
antitrust-policy mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy