IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Fri, 20 January 2012 22:06 UTC

Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.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 DFF6821F84DF for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:06:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -108.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 yeqAuTh7pmFe for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:06:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com (e38.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E14A821F8475 for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:06:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from /spool/local by e38.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org> from <narten@us.ibm.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:06:29 -0700
Received: from d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.177) by e38.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.138) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:05:37 -0700
Received: from d01relay01.pok.ibm.com (d01relay01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.233]) by d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 623B41FF0049 for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:05:35 -0700 (MST)
Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay01.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q0KM5atm259678 for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:05:36 -0500
Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q0KM5ZhF012268 for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 20:05:36 -0200
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-224-224.mts.ibm.com [9.65.224.224]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q0KM5Z9d012233 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Jan 2012 20:05:35 -0200
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id q0KM5Xix007398; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:05:33 -0500
Message-Id: <201201202205.q0KM5Xix007398@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Jorge Contreras <cntreras@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <CAP0PwYb_pGynJYeSwiqnKp_qjSTWt4z7=+h6Et6Y7XGKvW8MiA@mail.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>
Comments: In-reply-to Jorge Contreras <cntreras@gmail.com> message dated "Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:57:28 -0600."
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:05:32 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 12012022-5518-0000-0000-000001B126DC
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: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:06:32 -0000

> 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.

Hey, maybe the IETF should become a leader here and push the envelope
a bit and maybe even establish some case law in the process!!!

NOT, in case anyone thinks I'm being serious.

And I agree with those that wonder what problem we would be solving by
encouraging the IETF get into the license negotiation business.

Thomas

v2.20.3 | Report a Bug | By Email