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

[Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Stephen Farrell
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I have no skin in the money games around the IETF these
> days since I currently work in a University.
>
> The same is true of a bunch of IETF participants of
> various kinds, at various times over the duration of their
> participation.
>
> Why can't I just ignore all this, since I'm not being
> anti-competitive even if I do some of these supposedly
> bad things?

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think that the IETF should be in the
business of making these distinctions. Would it matter, for example,
if
you worked at a University that aggressively licensed their patents
for money ? That participated in licensing agencies such as MPEG-LA ?
What if your university was for-profit ? It is not the job of the IETF
to decide whether your University is "in the game" or not.

Regards
Marshall



>
> If (as I believe) I basically can, in terms of the
> various known competition/anti-trust laws, then this
> putative policy would cause us to be distinguishing
> between IETF participants on the basis of their
> employers (or lack thereof) which I think is a bad
> thing.
>
> As it happens, since I've currently got an IETF management
> hat, I don't believe that I am currently able to ignore
> the kinds of constraint. Read the above as if I had no
> such hat. I also believe that one shouldn't do some of
> these things since it'd be dumb. But that's also beside
> the point.
>
> S
>
> On 01/15/2012 08:38 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Based on the length of this thread, it is clear to me that more
>>> discussion is needed, but I do not think that the IETF mail list is the
>>> place to have it.  So, the antitrust-policy mail list has been set up to
>>> continue the discussion.
>>>
>>> It is clear to me that many people are questioning what would go in such
>>> a policy.  I have been working on a strawman.  It is short, but it answers
>>> the question about what topics would be covered.  I will post that strawman
>>> to the antitrust-policy mail list for discussion from two perspectives.
>>>  First, does the IETF want to adopt an antitrust policy.  Second, the
>>> strawman will provide the basis for a conversation on the content of such a
>>> policy if the consensus is that the IETF wants to adopt one.
>>>
>>> I'll wait a few days so that people have time to join the
>>> antitrust-policy mail list before the discussion begins.
>>
>>
>>
>> When I announced this mail list, I said that i would post a strawman to
>> answer the question about what such a policy would include.  Here it is.
>>
>> Russ
>>
>> === === === === ===
>>
>> Existing IETF process and procedures were specifically designed to avoid
>> problems with antitrust and competition laws.  The IETF has an open
>> decision process, explicit rules for intellectual property, and a
>> well-defined appeals process.  All of these contribute to the robust
>> standards development process used by the IETF.
>>
>> Yet, it is worth reminding all IETF participants that all IETF meetings,
>> including virtual meetings, shall be conducted in compliance with all
>> applicable laws, including antitrust and competition laws.
>>
>> Some participants at IETF meetings are undoubtedly employed by
>> competitors of the employers of other IETF meeting participants.
>> Accordingly, IETF meeting participants are expected to avoid  even
>> the appearance of impropriety.
>>
>> IETF meeting participants MUST NOT:
>>
>>  - discuss product prices, product profits, internal product cost,
>>    bidding, terms of bidding, allocation of customers, division of
>>    sales markets, sales territories, or marketing strategies;
>>
>>  - condition or discuss conditioning the implementation of an IETF
>>    specification on the implementer’s use of products or services from
>>    a particular supplier;
>>
>>  - discuss agreements to collectively refuse or conditionally refuse to
>>    do business with a particular supplier;
>>
>>  - suggest any action for the purpose of giving one company or a few
>>    companies significant competitive advantage over others;
>>
>>  - present or exchange proprietary information; or
>>
>>  - share non-public status or substance of ongoing or threatened
>>    litigation.
>>
>> All IETF meeting participants MUST disclose patents or patent
>> applications reasonably and personally known to them.  Please
>> review the IETF IPR rules in RFC 3979.
>>
>> IETF meeting participants MAY:
>>
>>  - discuss technical considerations of any proposals, including relative
>>    costs to implement, operate, and support them;
>>
>>  - discuss licensing costs of essential patent claims associated with
>>    different technical approaches;
>>
>>   - discuss the likelihood that adoption of a particular technical
>>     approach would subject implementers to a greater or lesser risk of
>>     patent litigation;
>>
>>   - discuss or present broad market potential or market requirements for
>>     informational purposes.
>>
>> If you observe behavior in violation of these guidelines at an IETF
>> meeting, please do not be silent; formally object.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> antitrust-policy mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
>>
> _______________________________________________
> antitrust-policy mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy