Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification for draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-08.txt
Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> Mon, 11 March 2024 14:58 UTC
Return-Path: <huitema@huitema.net>
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 06287C14F5FB; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 07:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bp4TdzTGc6Zm; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 07:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from se03.mfg.siteprotect.com (se03.mfg.siteprotect.com [64.26.60.166]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72031C14E515; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 07:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpauth02.mfg.siteprotect.com ([64.26.60.151]) by se03.mfg.siteprotect.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1rjh6C-00GM9v-Gc; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:57:57 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.102] (unknown [172.56.200.68]) (Authenticated sender: huitema@huitema.net) by smtpauth02.mfg.siteprotect.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Ttfym4R62z2YVXk6; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:57:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <361edbab-ed30-4b4e-83fd-d24bc9afd437@huitema.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 07:57:50 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org>, "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
Cc: "antitrust-policy@ietf.org" <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
References: <170924133688.22191.501196370379528149@ietfa.amsl.com> <1AE485F0-0DD8-4D0B-9581-1F3B2B3ABAA2@staff.ietf.org> <MN2PR19MB404529B1B9485A99BB39ABEC83232@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <18901D0C-D1F0-4B06-9CE3-E7A59C85D362@ietf.org> <MN2PR19MB40453C8016DCA9567614A04183212@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <DDFC7ADB-760A-4899-87D2-5DEB52307491@ietf.org> <MN2PR19MB4045F833057FE6450F94BD2683212@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <23CE98D1-D619-49EE-947C-EE62326CC294@ietf.org>
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Autocrypt: addr=huitema@huitema.net; keydata= xjMEXtavGxYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdA1ou9A5MHTP9N3jfsWzlDZ+jPnQkusmc7sfLmWVz1RmvN J0NocmlzdGlhbiBIdWl0ZW1hIDxodWl0ZW1hQGh1aXRlbWEubmV0PsKWBBMWCAA+FiEEw3G4 Nwi4QEpAAXUUELAmqKBYtJQFAl7WrxsCGwMFCQlmAYAFCwkIBwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgEC F4AACgkQELAmqKBYtJQbMwD/ebj/qnSbthC/5kD5DxZ/Ip0CGJw5QBz/+fJp3R8iAlsBAMjK r2tmyWyJz0CUkVG24WaR5EAJDvgwDv8h22U6QVkAzjgEXtavGxIKKwYBBAGXVQEFAQEHQJoM 6MUAIqpoqdCIiACiEynZf7nlJg2Eu0pXIhbUGONdAwEIB8J+BBgWCAAmFiEEw3G4Nwi4QEpA AXUUELAmqKBYtJQFAl7WrxsCGwwFCQlmAYAACgkQELAmqKBYtJRm2wD7BzeK5gEXSmBcBf0j BYdSaJcXNzx4yPLbP4GnUMAyl2cBAJzcsR4RkwO4dCRqM9CHpVJCwHtbUDJaa55//E0kp+gH
In-Reply-To: <23CE98D1-D619-49EE-947C-EE62326CC294@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Authentication-Results: mfg.siteprotect.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=huitema@huitema.net
X-Originating-IP: 64.26.60.151
X-SpamExperts-Domain: mfg.outbound
X-SpamExperts-Username: 64.26.60.150/31
Authentication-Results: mfg.siteprotect.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=64.26.60.150/31@mfg.outbound
X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Class: ham
X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.15)
X-Recommended-Action: accept
X-Filter-ID: Pt3MvcO5N4iKaDQ5O6lkdGlMVN6RH8bjRMzItlySaT+4DD/xRc5ex/3xDeIhgfKpPUtbdvnXkggZ 3YnVId/Y5jcf0yeVQAvfjHznO7+bT5zCCc14pnmPoULTmWI1hhOLwMOarrC98ZADroErW4xxbxVR QtksCn1akpJ2QvMVkFiNfWkcXkBsW9FnCOmrKDydncuLMc0l4h8laPU0C680lTWTq+AeRYcXwpNH kY7oN5Jl1kGXQQNLrkXm1jcoB6zHw+N2XgwAM8MQNXgVJQC7nbfgLSpDJEMwTgKguln1W72Gzz8m jcgYF0balAMC/uNd3WOGcz8xu9rZctX8sgTNov4euIZdCDQhxCRaZ86OjeyjzetFJxokFUyX5MIw U+rrg8CBO1Snvm6qXHQp7O9kddBzSHp6mfhbuNftTmgn7WNDuYiDuYqXv6DeUvbpGBxBZsN/DZ4i BHU1jKlc4dIeTtVzfBpUNIJbCsp5zJU0MGPpxOsB8gG0slV7ra6jI4BSJGlDdAt5iE2wWUUtBv7R wyGL9OyxAMsMu5TiHOeDBqWXHsenVowo8TiQrxT6yMwSkqxYHPHnjKyF8qK+f2qVwmpNZuMl2RpF rF/ORCBqH7EGtpV0foUL7ai8FSlqJ3s5tJgWpi0EXjWF2fsxKnVjGHwrgSC2Cw3YiPqrhSLQcL74 L0nk+TooPV1h2BXu3/c8PBHH57cLkN8Bd0wm8jqRC7iK9ree+gUyHwXcNW6nr8Boh9VoIekQHpwU fpYnEThm4LvIIVmfZUxTEA36IbT+3vGkn8tItHF0OnAdF4BReJX2UKtLMOKc7wnqM7AEV50km0aE w2cd4srVDfzOXXEzlGpfWecw6jr3t6Pygm04TXbNbtLtUIjMdb1GvM5tzHodiwQzKw+6v3CaIMG6 s7LqJApa2KYbpxQ+5NFmxsE+cIDEMzerJfQa9UAYKsgEV8p+bmH18qnoL56IViqA7sk1MJWq0mdg gONwON1Nk0Gc4sSOj+44RijFCuwQ8UhSJnW+RAnlwpKczClDWQRI7QmSrYfJzuimIQMKKkOD7B3W qYuSjMBmhzm4rz1rq/+01PILrpfLxiqw5H33TDtJKcymlqKC14iBBXlAZTWMzly2+5mSpa/wqu1N r4Fy4IT84VymWHP0EBLgndUoAi6L9qDL19rfSBrcZ3Fjv2N8xSqGcXe2vGAeV+d+6ytw3FbeGFqR JwxlsxwHTK2czylKVJ3UEg==
X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@se02.mfg.siteprotect.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/antitrust-policy/WTzOzqscxWIouFvX4bLWPpxKNgQ>
Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification for draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-08.txt
X-BeenThere: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 11 Mar 2024 14:58:39 -0000
On 3/6/2024 9:47 AM, Jay Daley wrote: > Hi David > >> On 6 Mar 2024, at 16:56, Black, David <David.Black@dell.com> wrote: >> >>> "IPR (licensing) terms" has exactly the same problems - there are times when it is not an antitrust risk and so even this mentioning >>> it leads to confusion and mis-interpretation around the boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not. >> This is not about stating or implying what is acceptable vs. what is not – that should be left to legal counsel. > > Let me try and explain this better: To put it in concrete terms, with very basic advice of the form you suggest, we had questions of the kind "so does that mean I can’t do X unless I check it with a lawyer first?", and "does this mean I can’t do X any more because I don’t have access to lawyers to advise me", and "if someone else does X do I need to get legal advice before I respond", where the X they have specified is something entirely acceptable and in some cases not actually about this subject. > > It was trying to respond to those questions that then led us down the path of trying to provide guidance on where the boundaries lay because leaving it with these questions unanswered appeared to be doing more harm than good, but that is not where we started and it was not going down that path that created the confusion. > >> The goal is to strongly suggest obtaining legal advice (e.g., on what is acceptable vs. what is not) before engaging in any activities in this area. I think that sort of strong suggestion is highly appropriate for "IPR (licensing) terms" discussions, and I also think that it's fine for participants to steer further clear of discussions in this area than is strictly necessary. > > The authors would like to have seen this sort of guidance in this document - we are not withdrawing it because disagree with it but because we could not develop any wording to express this, even in the most minimal form, that does not create more problems than it aims to solve. As someone who complained about the previous wording, let me support Jay and the other authors here. The goal is to provide non-controversial guidance in a way that does not change IETF processes. There is conundrum there, because the IETF processes do include a preference for unencumbered solutions, while simple legalistic texts could be used to argue against that preference as an antitrust issue. IMHO, not saying anything at all about the issue preserves the status quo, and that's good. -- Christian Huitema > Jay > >> Thanks, --David >> From: Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 9:40 AM >> To: Black, David <David.Black@dell.com> >> Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org; Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> >> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification for draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-08.txt >> [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi David >> >> >> On 6 Mar 2024, at 03:56, Black, David <David.Black@dell.com> wrote: >> Hi Jay, >> >> >> E.g., in a new paragraph at the end of Section 4.2 (Obtaining Independent Legal Advice): >> >> Participants are specifically encouraged to obtain independent legal advice before engaging in activities that involve complex and subtle areas >> of antitrust law and regulations, e.g., use of unpublished market data to inform decisions and discussion of IPR licensing terms and conditions with IPR owners. >> >> That would provide a useful warning to participants without getting into the details of exactly which activities are ok vs. not ok. >> I've deliberately generalized both topics in the above "e.g." list, and additional topics could be added. >> >> This is basically what that section was aiming to say - watch out with these areas. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to identify >> *any* agreed text that can be used for this purpose. For example, the text I used and that you reproduced "unpublished market data" >> is considered by some to be completely missing the point and therefore more harmful than helpful. >> >> Then drop the "unpublished market data" example. I think it would still be helpful if "discussion of IPR licensing terms and conditions with IPR owners" is used by itself an example where consulting with counsel is encouraged. >> "IPR (licensing) terms" has exactly the same problems - there are times when it is not an antitrust risk and so even this mentioning it leads to confusion and mis-interpretation around the boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not. >> Jay >> >> >> >> Thanks, --David >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 4:10 AM >> To: Black, David <David.Black@dell.com> >> Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org; Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> >> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification for draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-08.txt >> >> >> [EXTERNAL EMAIL] >> >> Hi David >> >> Thanks for that - response below: >> >> >> On 4 Mar 2024, at 16:13, Black, David <David.Black@dell.com> wrote: >> >> Jay, >> >> >> The only substantive change is that the previous section "Topics requiring caution" has now been deleted. >> In the previous version of this I-D, this section covered two areas: >> the first began "Using unpublished market data to evaluate the >> relative implementation costs" and the second was "Entering into potentially discriminatory, group negotiations of IPR terms". >> These are both complex areas where some behaviours are an antitrust >> risk and some are not, but it has become clear that explaining where >> the difference lies is not possible and all attempts so far have confused people and led to mis-interpretation. >> >> We understand that some on this list wanted this explained, while others wanted this whole section deleted, but after much discussion we concluded that deletion was our only option. >> >> Would it be reasonable to recognize the complexity and subtlety of those topics by mentioning them (or generalized versions of them) as specific areas in which independent legal advice is recommended? That would send people with doubts/questions about them to the experts (e.g., anti-trust lawyers), which is what I think we'd like to see happen. E.g., in a new paragraph at the end of Section 4.2 (Obtaining Independent Legal Advice): >> >> Participants are specifically encouraged to obtain independent legal advice before engaging in activities that involve complex and subtle areas >> of antitrust law and regulations, e.g., use of unpublished market data to inform decisions and discussion of IPR licensing terms and conditions with IPR owners. >> >> That would provide a useful warning to participants without getting into the details of exactly which activities are ok vs. not ok. I've deliberately generalized both topics in the above "e.g." list, and additional topics could be added. >> >> This is basically what that section was aiming to say - watch out with these areas. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to identify *any* agreed text that can be used for this purpose. For example, the text I used and that you reproduced "unpublished market data" is considered by some to be completely missing the point and therefore more harmful than helpful. >> >> cheers >> Jay >> >> -- >> Jay Daley >> IETF Executive Director >> exec-director@ietf.org >> -- >> Jay Daley >> IETF Executive Director >> exec-director@ietf.org > >
- [antitrust-policy] Fwd: New Version Notification … Jay Daley
- Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification f… Jay Daley
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Fwd: New Version Notificat… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification f… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification f… Jay Daley
- Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification f… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification f… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification f… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification f… Salz, Rich
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Fwd: New Version Notificat… Black, David
- Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification f… Jay Daley
- Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification f… Black, David
- Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification f… Jay Daley
- Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification f… Black, David
- Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification f… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification f… Jay Daley
- Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification f… Christian Huitema