Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 15 January 2012 23:24 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 56DBE21F84D6 for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:24:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BU1fLGxvin0i for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:24:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F7721F84C3 for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:24:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by eeit10 with SMTP id t10so766969eei.31 for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:24:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=0zqaTsIzXM9TuMZeS2V4vLbqdFSlEB7kZrg6BqYCRoo=; b=HjzJyiyH/PsasOwdncNJSQkRRSDWMEbRjgCaqg1v0Am1JubXb3pgIoh2FADng9zwNb Pp68ouRnopuYZBQMIicaJZCSH613szmuepmoPnU/griwt+1wRvxwa3/Kqsfu25+q2RE9 v85mxo6KTcw2m/Xe9cQsVjd+qPQYrX8dFASyA=
Received: by 10.213.10.74 with SMTP id o10mr2820121ebo.115.1326669883184; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:24:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.1.1.4] ([121.98.251.219]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u53sm64726643eeu.6.2012.01.15.15.24.39 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:24:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F136032.5090906@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:24:34 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jorge Contreras <cntreras@gmail.com>
References: <20120110205143.6FDCF21F86F9@ietfa.amsl.com> <A44BB68F-19AB-462B-8A65-ACA855EA2ED1@vigilsec.com> <DE7B7ADC-F160-4633-8FD0-8453573D9830@vigilsec.com> <4F1342D8.50002@joelhalpern.com> <CAP0PwYZFeayxRk0YwHaotHp8vwS8wOwAcYgagP1=WUu+guJ=xA@mail.gmail.com> <4F135514.6000705@joelhalpern.com> <CAP0PwYb_pGynJYeSwiqnKp_qjSTWt4z7=+h6Et6Y7XGKvW8MiA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP0PwYb_pGynJYeSwiqnKp_qjSTWt4z7=+h6Et6Y7XGKvW8MiA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for the IETF
X-BeenThere: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 23:24:46 -0000

On 2012-01-16 11:57, Jorge Contreras wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>wrote:
> 
>> I am glad to hear that company disclosures of terms are being looked at
>> favorably.  But that was not the question I was trying to emphasis.
>>
>> I have seen, repeatedly, companies state licensing terms for disclosed
>> IPR, and WGs which are unhappy with those terms.  So far, so good.  that is
>> reality.
>> What I have seen people get tempted to do is for the WG to attempt to
>> persuade the company to change the licensing terms.  That, it seems to me,
>> is a very different kettle of fish.  If the understanding of the law
>> (probably due to judges) in that regard has changed, I would welcome being
>> told taht.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
> 
> 
> The issue of "collective negotiation" of licensing terms within an SDO is
> currently unsettled, and there are vocal advocates on each side of the
> question.  There have been no cases (at least not in the US) that are
> directly on point, as far as I'm aware.  Thus, we may wish to say nothing
> about this issue for the moment, and see how the law develops.

However, it would feel wrong to me if someone said (in a meeting or
on a mailing list) that XYZ Inc.'s license terms for a patent are
unreasonable *and* that they need to make them cheaper.

Saying that the terms are unreasonable and that the WG should therefore
seek an alternative technology that doesn't read on the patent
would feel OK.

    Brian