[antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow discussion of licensing costs

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Fri, 20 January 2012 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 2233321F8685 for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:30:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.089, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 JaUvrY27mQhF for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:30:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 370E821F8646 for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:30:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA8669A479A for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:30:32 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hz+rEmezB-FP for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:30:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.2.104] (pool-96-241-165-215.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.241.165.215]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81AC59A4793 for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:30:32 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F1342D8.50002@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:30:22 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E57CE263-D191-4E61-94FA-4B10345DC6B3@vigilsec.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>
To: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow discussion of licensing costs
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 19:30:25 -0000

>>  - discuss licensing costs of essential patent claims associated with
>>    different technical approaches;

This point in the strawman has lead to a disagreement.  Some say that this should not be allowed, and they point to the policies of other SDOs that prohibit it.  On the other side of this issue, Jorge points out that these SDOs are being very conservative, and he says that it is not prohibited by current antitrust and competitive laws.

This leads me to a question: Does the IETF need to be able to include discussion of licensing costs?  In other words, is it sufficient to distinguish between 'royalty free' and 'not royalty free'?

Russ