Re: [antitrust-policy] I-D Action: draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-05.txt

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

If that change to the bullet (to become "entering into ..." resolves the 
objections, then I am happy to make that change.   I would like to hear 
from those who have been expressing disagreement with the bullet.

Yours,

Joel

On 3/11/2023 12:36 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>
> On 10 Mar 2023, at 19:46, Joel Halpern wrote:
>
>       * Seeking clarifications about IPR disclosures, in a context
>         when any such clarifications could be reasonably perceived as
>         entering into group negotiations of IPR terms.
>
> The comma there is grammatically incorrect and, while that seems like 
> an editorial nit, maybe that's what's causing the hiccup for me. Try this:
>
>   * Entering into group negotiations of IPR terms or any discussion
>     that could be reasonably perceived as doing so.
>
> "Seeking clarifications about IPR disclosures" is an not a problem and 
> putting it separately as the first clause of the bullet makes it seem 
> like that alone needs to be done with caution. It's only when the 
> discussion turns to negotiating IPR terms (or things that smell like 
> that) that problems come up. If you say the above instead, it would 
> cause me less heartburn.
>
> I also agree with Stephan's point about restructuring 4.1 as a bullet 
> list. Right now, even though the intro phrase says "These topics 
> include", some of the things in the list are not topics; some are 
> "discussions" and some only are problematic if the discussion of the 
> topic is is among competitors. Rewriting this as a bullet list and 
> making sure the actor is identified would help clarify for me.
>
> pr
>
> --
> Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
> All connections to the world are tenuous at best
>