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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 20 January 2012 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 4B3DD21F852C for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:31:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 Ej0jhK75kSMk for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:31:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E8121F8532 for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:31:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by eekc1 with SMTP id c1so475365eek.31 for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:31:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Pi+zFy//EjPHZfCUMlZQH3M7LxNqSiCB4sdjEYD57aI=; b=sTemo0KkYCTkdCZ6xP0Tjp3PUyxBE/YeGW01yWv42Ynf7WfPyM9bTLYyAOkQbys1Hc x8pGLaP+jmndPuugZs31MOJUC1ogpKgWNvd26tiLHsn3oTAX/UmTLtg4ztPZ+A2KiDRa Hfkm4IrQIoti6DPOdBrXMVhAnijLjNRRwd3N0=
Received: by 10.14.13.205 with SMTP id b53mr3907186eeb.68.1327098704771; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:31:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.1.1.4] ([121.98.251.219]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u53sm17170599eeu.6.2012.01.20.14.31.41 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:31:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F19EB45.2090002@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:31:33 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.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> <E57CE263-D191-4E61-94FA-4B10345DC6B3@vigilsec.com> <CAP0PwYaNqC--OACimd70Adsok4nL1VNOjzdDF3TE4psRTo_Kuw@mail.gmail.com> <201201202207.q0KM7trm007418@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <201201202207.q0KM7trm007418@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Jorge Contreras <cntreras@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [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 22:31:46 -0000

On 2012-01-21 11:07, Thomas Narten wrote:
> IANAL. That said...

Ditto

>> 3.  If you said yes to either 1 or 2, should *discussion *of those
>> licensing costs be allowed?
> 
> Disallowed? That may be going too far. Should we do so? Probably not,
> in the *vast* majority of cases. What reasonable discussion could be
> had, and what concrete actions could come out of such a discussion?

I could imagine a discussion concluding that a specific $ amount was
too great a disincentive, so that the WG needs to look for an alternative
technology. Counsel needs to advise us whether that would be OK in
an open meeting; I assume it might be problematic in a private meeting
between people from different companies.

But in practice the disclosures we get only say "reasonable" and that
doesn't lead us very far.

   Brian