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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 01/20/2012 10:12 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Stephen Farrell
> <[e-mail]>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 01/20/2012 09:48 PM, Jorge Contreras wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:42 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You may not have a personal financial interest, but some universities
>>> these
>>> days make a lot of money from their patent licensing programs,
>>
>>
>> We don't as it happens. But we do pay people to try (badly as
>> it turns out;-)
>>
>>
>>> and many
>>>
>>> more would like to.  Also, universities can and are sued for antitrust
>>> violations, and there is no 'academic' immunity from these sorts of
>>> claims.
>>
>>
>> I've never heard of that. Got some examples that might be relevant
>> to the IETF? (Not of IPR or being sued in general, but specific to
>> anti-trust/competition law.)
>>
>>
>>>   Thus, your employer/university is not that different than a company in
>>> this regard.
>>
>>
>> University is just one kind of employer. Some people self-fund
>> in various ways.
>>
>> My point is that this policy assumes that all participants can
>> in principle be anti-competition which seems like nonsense to
>> me.
>>
>> I hate building a policy based on nonsense.
>>
>
> Do you think that Universities should not have to file IPR disclosures ? If
> I get a patent on technology used in RFC X, can I decide that I don't
> need to file
> an IPR disclosure because I don't intend to charge royalties  with
> anybody in the WG ?

I think participants are responsible for handling IPR
declarations which is right regardless of employer.

But this is about anti-trust not IPR declarations. If there's
no difference then we don't need any new policy.

What University has been part of an anti-trust action was
my question. I don't know of any. (I could maybe imagine
something related to genetics perhaps but even there I don't
recall competition law being involved, nor an SDO.)

> I don't see the difference. The IETF shouldn't be in the job of making
> these sorts of decisions.

I don't know what you mean there.

S

>
> Regards
> Marshall
>
>> S
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>
>>> see above
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> antitrust-policy mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
>