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

> In the absence of any relevant anti-trust + SDO + non-large
> company example from anywhere in the world, I disagree.
> 
> I'll happily admit I'm wrong if someone has a relevant
> example.
>
> Building a policy that includes non-large-company employees
> based on nothing concrete seems wrong.

Excuse me, but anti-trust law applies to companies of all sizes.  I'll leave finding relevant
case law examples to Jorge, aside from noting that Rambus may be one such example.

> Building a policy that distinguishes between IETF participants
> based on the type of their employer seems wrong.

I suggest this approach, particularly if the policy is not burdensome (e.g., a list of
topics that should not be discussed), as there are a significant number of IETF participants
whose organizations are concerned about anti-trust (e.g., employees of large companies),
and I would hope everyone would be interested in encouraging broad participation in the IETF.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: antitrust-policy-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:antitrust-policy-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:32 PM
> To: Thomas Narten
> Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org; Russ Housley; Jorge Contreras
> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
> 
> 
> 
> On 01/20/2012 10:18 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> > Stephen Farrell<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>  writes:
> >
> >> My point is that this policy assumes that all participants can
> >> in principle be anti-competition which seems like nonsense to
> >> me.
> >
> > Not to put too fine a point on this, but engineers with no background
> > in anti-trust opining "much ado about nothing, I work for XYZ which
> > can't possibly cause an issue" makes a good argument for why we do
> > need a policy.
> 
> In the absence of any relevant anti-trust + SDO + non-large
> company example from anywhere in the world, I disagree.
> 
> I'll happily admit I'm wrong if someone has a relevant
> example.
> 
> Building a policy that includes non-large-company employees
> based on nothing concrete seems wrong.
> 
> Building a policy that distinguishes between IETF participants
> based on the type of their employer seems wrong.
> 
> The above two seem to be the choices here.
> 
>  > But it better be simple, clear and be understandable by
> > IETF participants. And maybe calling it a "policy" goes to far. What
> > we need is enough basic education about participant behavior to make
> > sure the IETF keeps out of trouble.
> >
> > Much as we might like to ignore IPR, anti-trust, and other
> > non-engineering issues, we are potentially impacted by them, and the
> > IETF could (if it or its participants behave stupidly), could find
> > itself in a Heap of Pain.
> >
> > But let's keep perspective here. Some simple guidelines, with an
> > understanding that if folk start going into dangerous territory that
> > needs to be stopped is probably about all we need.
> 
> I pretty much agree with the above. But I don't see what's required
> that's new compared to what we already have.
> 
> S.
> 
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> antitrust-policy mailing list
> antitrust-policy@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy