Re: [antitrust-policy] I-D Action: draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-05.txt

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

Pete's email (retained below) has a specific quote from the document and 
specific proposed replacement text.   That is what I was asking for 
feedback from those with concerns.

Yours,

Joel

On 3/11/2023 9:17 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Hi Joel,
>
> On 11/03/2023 07:43, Joel Halpern wrote:
>> If that change to the bullet (to become "entering into ..." resolves 
>> the objections, then I am happy to make that change.   I would like 
>> to hear from those who have been expressing disagreement with the 
>> bullet.
>
> I suspect you might be better to post OLD/NEW text or
> a PR if there's a git repo - since the problems I and
> maybe others are having with the text in 4.x seems to
> mainly be related to over-broad descriptions of dodgy
> situations that ends up also possibly covering things
> that are just not dodgy, having replacement text is a
> good plan.
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
>
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Joel
>>
>> On 3/11/2023 12:36 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10 Mar 2023, at 19:46, Joel Halpern wrote:
>>>
>>>       * Seeking clarifications about IPR disclosures, in a context
>>>         when any such clarifications could be reasonably perceived as
>>>         entering into group negotiations of IPR terms.
>>>
>>> The comma there is grammatically incorrect and, while that seems 
>>> like an editorial nit, maybe that's what's causing the hiccup for 
>>> me. Try this:
>>>
>>>   * Entering into group negotiations of IPR terms or any discussion
>>>     that could be reasonably perceived as doing so.
>>>
>>> "Seeking clarifications about IPR disclosures" is an not a problem 
>>> and putting it separately as the first clause of the bullet makes it 
>>> seem like that alone needs to be done with caution. It's only when 
>>> the discussion turns to negotiating IPR terms (or things that smell 
>>> like that) that problems come up. If you say the above instead, it 
>>> would cause me less heartburn.
>>>
>>> I also agree with Stephan's point about restructuring 4.1 as a 
>>> bullet list. Right now, even though the intro phrase says "These 
>>> topics include", some of the things in the list are not topics; some 
>>> are "discussions" and some only are problematic if the discussion of 
>>> the topic is is among competitors. Rewriting this as a bullet list 
>>> and making sure the actor is identified would help clarify for me.
>>>
>>> pr
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
>>> All connections to the world are tenuous at best
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> antitrust-policy mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy