Note that the suit does not complain about the 3GPP and ETSI rules. It alleges instead that the rules were not enforced, and that the leadership of these organization failed to prevent the alleged anti-competitive behavior of some companies.
I believe that our current rules are fine. They were specifically designed to prevent the kind of collusion described in the complaint. Yes, these rules were defined many years ago, but the Sherman Antitrust Act is even older -- it dates from 1890. We have an open decision process, explicit rules for intellectual property, and a well-defined appeals process. If the plaintiffs in the 3GPP/IETF lawsuit had been dissatisfied with an IETF working group, they could have use the IETF appeal process to raise the issue to the IESG, and the dispute would probably have been resolved after an open discussion. Rather than trying to set up rules that cover all hypothetical developments, I would suggest a practical approach. In our process, disputes are materialized by an appeal. Specific legal advice on the handling of a specific appeal is much more practical than abstract rulemaking. -- Christian Huitema -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel jaeggli Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 8:56 AM To: Jorge Contreras Cc: Ted Hardie; IETF Chair; IETF; IESG Subject: Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF On 11/28/11 12:58 , Jorge Contreras wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:35 PM, GTW <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > __ > Ted, I like your approach of enquiring what problem we are striving > to solve and I like Russ's concise answer that it is "Recent suits > against other SDOs that is the source of the concern" > > Russ, what are some of the "Recent suits against other SDOs" It > would be good to pin down the problem we are addressing > > There is FTC and N-data matter from 2008 > http://www.gtwassociates.com/alerts/Ndata1.htm > > > George -- one recent example is the pending antitrust suit by True > Position against ETSI, 3GPP and several of their members (who also > employ some IETF participants, I believe). Here is some relevant > language from the Complaint: When or if that suit is concluded you may be able to divine whether the antitrust policy of either SDO was of any value. > "100. By their failures to monitor and enforce the SSO Rules, and to > respond to TruePosition's specific complaints concerning violations > of the SSO Rules, 3GPP and ETSI have acquiesced in, are responsible > for, and complicit in, the abuse of authority and anticompetitive > conduct by Ericsson, Qualcomm, and Alcatel-Lucent. These failures > have resulted in the issuance of a Release 9 standard tainted by these > unfair processes, and for the delay until Release 11, at the earliest, > of a 3GPP standard for UTDOA positioning technology. By these > failures, 3GPP and ETSI have authorized and ratified the > anticompetitive conduct of Ericsson, Qualcomm, and Alcatel-Lucent and > have joined in and become parties to their combination and conspiracy." > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
