Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org> Mon, 16 January 2012 07:58 UTC

Return-Path: <rigo@w3.org>
X-Original-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AC1211E807A for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 23:58:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.74
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z2JDRDgOpc+2 for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 23:58:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lewis.sophia.w3.org (gw.sophia.w3.org [193.51.208.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427EA11E8074 for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 23:58:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from anancy-551-1-154-10.w90-6.abo.wanadoo.fr ([90.6.249.10] helo=freud.localnet) by lewis.sophia.w3.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <rigo@w3.org>) id 1RmhS0-0003aP-CI; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:57:56 +0000
From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
To: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:57:55 +0100
Message-ID: <94765859.jS5Yioq8NG@freud>
Organization: W3C
User-Agent: KMail/4.7.4 (Linux/3.1.0-6-desktop; KDE/4.7.4; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CAP0PwYZFeayxRk0YwHaotHp8vwS8wOwAcYgagP1=WUu+guJ=xA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120110205143.6FDCF21F86F9@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F1342D8.50002@joelhalpern.com> <CAP0PwYZFeayxRk0YwHaotHp8vwS8wOwAcYgagP1=WUu+guJ=xA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: Jorge Contreras <cntreras@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for the IETF
X-BeenThere: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss the need for an antitrust or competition policy for the IETF." <antitrust-policy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/antitrust-policy>, <mailto:antitrust-policy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/antitrust-policy>
List-Post: <mailto:antitrust-policy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:antitrust-policy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy>, <mailto:antitrust-policy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:58:11 -0000

Jorge

On Sunday 15 January 2012 16:32:38 Jorge Contreras wrote:
> Not all lawyers will agree with point (2), and
> some will disagree with vehemence.  However, you should know that the US
> Dept. of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have both viewed required "ex
> ante" disclosures of licensing terms in SDOs with favor (or, at least,
> without disfavor).  I would be happy to discuss in greater detail with you,
> and also invite any interested lawyers to the discussion.

FYI: 

There was a lot of discussion on ex-ante declarations in the EU and the 
Commission organized several workshops where the competition authorities were 
present. See:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/ict/standards/extended/event_en.htm

Some participants even suggested to carry licensing conditions in the patent 
registries. 

DG Competition has issued guidelines in Jan 2001 (we commented on the Draft)
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011XC0114(04):EN:HTML

See section 7: They say it is rather goal-driven than into little formalisms 
(who can discuss what) as currently discussed here.

So I'm rather with Stephan Wenger here. 

Best, 

Rigo