Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
<david.black@emc.com> Fri, 20 January 2012 23:27 UTC
Return-Path: <david.black@emc.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 6D83321F8534 for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:27:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -108.984
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.984 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.615, 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 nQ7rV+wq81k3 for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:27:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43CC921F852C for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:27:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.54]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q0KNR2eB022922 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:27:03 -0500
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd04.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.226]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:26:59 -0500
Received: from mxhub01.corp.emc.com (mxhub01.corp.emc.com [10.254.141.103]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q0KNQw0u008681; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:26:58 -0500
Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.99]) by mxhub01.corp.emc.com ([10.254.141.103]) with mapi; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:26:58 -0500
From: david.black@emc.com
To: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:26:57 -0500
Thread-Topic: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
Thread-Index: AczXyKyugr42cwqpSPmvPowntYCRhwAAICyg
Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05A7CF1281@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
References: <20120110205143.6FDCF21F86F9@ietfa.amsl.com> <A44BB68F-19AB-462B-8A65-ACA855EA2ED1@vigilsec.com> <DE7B7ADC-F160-4633-8FD0-8453573D9830@vigilsec.com> <4F19DFCF.7090608@cs.tcd.ie> <CAP0PwYZDVF1oGdMikAkxNrx965+W-+uMS-0usRSX9sX8QMaiWg@mail.gmail.com> <4F19E563.8050506@cs.tcd.ie> <201201202218.q0KMII1j007473@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4F19EB6B.2050301@cs.tcd.ie> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05A7CF1278@MX14A.corp.emc.com> <4F19F050.3040305@cs.tcd.ie> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05A7CF127D@MX14A.corp.emc.com> <4F19F445.7010600@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <4F19F445.7010600@cs.tcd.ie>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
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 23:27:07 -0000
> > An alternative to your view is that violation of such laws is detrimental not > > only to those who may be responsible for the violations, but also to the effective > > operation of the IETF as a whole, and I believe all IETF participants have > > (or should have) an interest in the latter. > > Fair point. Does that need a policy (other than "Don't be bold")? Yes - it's a good idea to spell out what not being bold means in somewhat more detail ;-). As I've noted earlier, here's an example of a somewhat more detailed standards organization anti-trust policy (see the bulleted list of six Sensitive Topics): http://www.incits.org/inatrust.htm Notice of that policy is given as part of every INCITS standards meeting (it's part of the INCITS functional equivalent of the NOTE WELL), and the policy is enforced. While it doesn't happen very often, I have seen the policyi enforced in practice. I'll leave the INCITS version of John Levine's hypothetical cross-examination as an exercise for the reader, aside from noting that it would diverge dramatically at the very first answer. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie] > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 6:10 PM > To: Black, David > Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests? > > > > On 01/20/2012 11:02 PM, david.black@emc.com wrote: > >>> Excuse me, but anti-trust law applies to companies of all sizes. I'll leave finding relevant > >>> case law examples to Jorge, aside from noting that Rambus may be one such example. > >> > >> Fair enough wrt company size. I've no idea how big Rambus > >> were at the time. > >> > >> But my main point still applies, I believe. > > > > I appreciate that ... as to your main point: > > > >>>>>> My point is that this policy assumes that all participants can > >>>>>> in principle be anti-competition which seems like nonsense to > >>>>>> me. > > > > Hmm ... Russ's second paragraph was: > > > > Yet, it is worth reminding all IETF participants that all IETF meetings, > > including virtual meetings, shall be conducted in compliance with all > > applicable laws, including antitrust and competition laws. > > Right. "Don't be bold" is fine advice. But not really a policy. > (I'd also be interested in the answer to John Levine's most > recent question [1].) > > > An alternative to your view is that violation of such laws is detrimental not > > only to those who may be responsible for the violations, but also to the effective > > operation of the IETF as a whole, and I believe all IETF participants have > > (or should have) an interest in the latter. > > Fair point. Does that need a policy (other than "Don't be bold")? > > S > > [1] > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/antitrust-policy/current/msg00052.html > > > > > > Thanks, > > --David > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: antitrust-policy-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:antitrust-policy-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > >> Stephen Farrell > >> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:53 PM > >> To: Black, David > >> Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests? > >> > >> > >> > >> On 01/20/2012 10:47 PM, david.black@emc.com wrote: > >>>> In the absence of any relevant anti-trust + SDO + non-large > >>>> company example from anywhere in the world, I disagree. > >>>> > >>>> I'll happily admit I'm wrong if someone has a relevant > >>>> example. > >>>> > >>>> Building a policy that includes non-large-company employees > >>>> based on nothing concrete seems wrong. > >>> > >>> Excuse me, but anti-trust law applies to companies of all sizes. I'll leave finding relevant > >>> case law examples to Jorge, aside from noting that Rambus may be one such example. > >> > >> Fair enough wrt company size. I've no idea how big Rambus > >> were at the time. > >> > >> But my main point still applies, I believe. > >> > >> S > >> > >>>> Building a policy that distinguishes between IETF participants > >>>> based on the type of their employer seems wrong. > >>> > >>> I suggest this approach, particularly if the policy is not burdensome (e.g., a list of > >>> topics that should not be discussed), as there are a significant number of IETF participants > >>> whose organizations are concerned about anti-trust (e.g., employees of large companies), > >>> and I would hope everyone would be interested in encouraging broad participation in the IETF. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> --David > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: antitrust-policy-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:antitrust-policy-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > >>>> Stephen Farrell > >>>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:32 PM > >>>> To: Thomas Narten > >>>> Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org; Russ Housley; Jorge Contreras > >>>> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 01/20/2012 10:18 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > >>>>> Stephen Farrell<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> writes: > >>>>> > >>>>>> My point is that this policy assumes that all participants can > >>>>>> in principle be anti-competition which seems like nonsense to > >>>>>> me. > >>>>> > >>>>> Not to put too fine a point on this, but engineers with no background > >>>>> in anti-trust opining "much ado about nothing, I work for XYZ which > >>>>> can't possibly cause an issue" makes a good argument for why we do > >>>>> need a policy. > >>>> > >>>> In the absence of any relevant anti-trust + SDO + non-large > >>>> company example from anywhere in the world, I disagree. > >>>> > >>>> I'll happily admit I'm wrong if someone has a relevant > >>>> example. > >>>> > >>>> Building a policy that includes non-large-company employees > >>>> based on nothing concrete seems wrong. > >>>> > >>>> Building a policy that distinguishes between IETF participants > >>>> based on the type of their employer seems wrong. > >>>> > >>>> The above two seem to be the choices here. > >>>> > >>>> > But it better be simple, clear and be understandable by > >>>>> IETF participants. And maybe calling it a "policy" goes to far. What > >>>>> we need is enough basic education about participant behavior to make > >>>>> sure the IETF keeps out of trouble. > >>>>> > >>>>> Much as we might like to ignore IPR, anti-trust, and other > >>>>> non-engineering issues, we are potentially impacted by them, and the > >>>>> IETF could (if it or its participants behave stupidly), could find > >>>>> itself in a Heap of Pain. > >>>>> > >>>>> But let's keep perspective here. Some simple guidelines, with an > >>>>> understanding that if folk start going into dangerous territory that > >>>>> needs to be stopped is probably about all we need. > >>>> > >>>> I pretty much agree with the above. But I don't see what's required > >>>> that's new compared to what we already have. > >>>> > >>>> S. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thomas > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> antitrust-policy mailing list > >>>> antitrust-policy@ietf.org > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> antitrust-policy mailing list > >>> antitrust-policy@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> antitrust-policy mailing list > >> antitrust-policy@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy > > > > _______________________________________________ > > antitrust-policy mailing list > > antitrust-policy@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy > >
- [antitrust-policy] New Non-WG Mailing List: antit… IETF Secretariat
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Russ Housley
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Russ Housley
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Jorge Contreras
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Jorge Contreras
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Jorge Contreras
- [antitrust-policy] Proprietary information [An An… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Proprietary information [A… Jorge Contreras
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Rigo Wenning
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Jorge Contreras
- [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow discussi… Russ Housley
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow disc… Jorge Contreras
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow disc… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow disc… Russ Housley
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow disc… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow disc… Jorge Contreras
- [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those wit… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Jorge Contreras
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Russ Housley
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow disc… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow disc… Jorge Contreras
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for th… Thomas Narten
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow disc… Thomas Narten
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Jorge Contreras
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Thomas Narten
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow disc… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… david.black
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… david.black
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… david.black
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… david.black
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [antitrust-policy] back to what problem are w… John Levine
- Re: [antitrust-policy] back to what problem are w… George Willingmyre
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Rigo Wenning
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Jorge Contreras
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… John Levine
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… david.black
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… John Levine
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… david.black
- Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those… Rigo Wenning