Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow discussion of licensing costs

Useful questions.  My personal opinion inline.
Stephan

From:  Jorge Contreras <cntreras@gmail.com>
Date:  Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:37:06 -0500
To:  Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc:  <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>
Subject:  Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow discussion of
licensing costs

[]

1.  Should disclosure of licensing terms be allowed?

Yes.  I'm not aware of any precedent suggesting that uni-lateral disclosure
of licensing terms, including monetary terms, is problematic (though I know
people who would disagree).  Voluntary ex ante is fine with me.

2.  Should disclosure of licensing terms be required?

You would have to change the IETF's IPR policy to create such a requirement.
I would argue against it, because it creates a higher hurdle of
participation compared to what we have today, and the likelihood of useful
information being made available is not very high.  ("I'm going to charge up
to 10% of your revenue.")

3.  If you said yes to either 1 or 2, should discussion of those licensing
costs be allowed?

No, for at least the reason that many (most?) individuals participating in
the IETF are neither authorized, nor qualified, nor particularly interested
to conduct such discussions on behalf of the right holder (which is, in most
cases, their employer).

As far as Russ' issue about royalty-free (RF) vs. royalty-bearing goes:
there is no need to "discuss" the monetary aspect of RF vs. non-RF, because
the situation is clear: for one, you probably need to pay, for the other,
probably not.    

Stephan

Jorge

_______________________________________________ antitrust-policy mailing
list antitrust-policy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy