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

Jorge Contreras <cntreras@gmail.com> Sun, 15 January 2012 22:57 UTC

Return-Path: <cntreras@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 D156B21F84F4 for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:57:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.357
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.357 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.241, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 wOSBONhInpNy for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:57:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1011021F8469 for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:57:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wgbdq11 with SMTP id dq11so23834wgb.13 for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:57:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=DMuKaGftp1PJubdZUWkHs0q35Wa9eHJOYWy5OP9fH/Y=; b=OKuGWc2ZS1SAK1ZauHlRp/4KWWuikvTOofj1OmrLcNVkNf7W2uwLQTSqM5Vd+T4dTU 1p4wGl17ZjIPVMwz6gR9a8HAOyMt2ty1X0U4do5J8KpaCwEIjSqYmEJ7w4BfLS5b5+7W iGobAooy4UEwlfDq7p+eutS0xRXwXjk12Wd+0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.88.169 with SMTP id bh9mr10205738wib.20.1326668248216; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:57:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.87.1 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:57:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4F135514.6000705@joelhalpern.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>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:57:28 -0600
Message-ID: <CAP0PwYb_pGynJYeSwiqnKp_qjSTWt4z7=+h6Et6Y7XGKvW8MiA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jorge Contreras <cntreras@gmail.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04182570ab730604b6990507
Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org, 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 22:57:30 -0000

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.