Subject: [antitrust-policy] New Non-WG Mailing List: antitrust-policy

From: IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:51:43 -0800 (PST)

A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.

List address: [email-masked]
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/antitrust-policy/
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy

Purpose: Discuss the need for an antitrust or competition policy for the IETF. If the consensus is to create one, then the content of that policy will be discussed as well.

For additional information, please contact the list administrators.

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:36:30 -0500

Based on the length of this thread, it is clear to me that more discussion is needed, but I do not think that the IETF mail list is the place to have it.  So, the antitrust-policy mail list has been set up to continue the discussion.

It is clear to me that many people are questioning what would go in such a policy.  I have been working on a strawman.  It is short, but it answers the question about what topics would be covered.  I will post that strawman to the antitrust-policy mail list for discussion from two perspectives.  First, does the IETF want to adopt an antitrust policy.  Second, the strawman will provide the basis for a conversation on the content of such a policy if the consensus is that the IETF wants to adopt one.

I'll wait a few days so that people have time to join the antitrust-policy mail list before the discussion begins.

Russ

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:38:45 -0500

> I'll wait a few days so that people have time to join the antitrust-policy mail list before the discussion begins.

When I announced this mail list, I said that i would post a strawman to answer the question about what such a policy would include.  Here it is.

Russ

=== === === === ===

Existing IETF process and procedures were specifically designed to avoid
problems with antitrust and competition laws.  The IETF has an open
decision process, explicit rules for intellectual property, and a
well-defined appeals process.  All of these contribute to the robust
standards development process used by the IETF.

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.

Some participants at IETF meetings are undoubtedly employed by
competitors of the employers of other IETF meeting participants.
Accordingly, IETF meeting participants are expected to avoid even
the appearance of impropriety.

IETF meeting participants MUST NOT:

 - discuss product prices, product profits, internal product cost,
   bidding, terms of bidding, allocation of customers, division of
   sales markets, sales territories, or marketing strategies;

 - condition or discuss conditioning the implementation of an IETF 
   specification on the implementer’s use of products or services from
   a particular supplier;

 - discuss agreements to collectively refuse or conditionally refuse to
   do business with a particular supplier;

 - suggest any action for the purpose of giving one company or a few
   companies significant competitive advantage over others;

 - present or exchange proprietary information; or

 - share non-public status or substance of ongoing or threatened
   litigation.

All IETF meeting participants MUST disclose patents or patent
applications reasonably and personally known to them.  Please
review the IETF IPR rules in RFC 3979.

IETF meeting participants MAY:

 - discuss technical considerations of any proposals, including relative
   costs to implement, operate, and support them;

 - discuss licensing costs of essential patent claims associated with
   different technical approaches;

  - discuss the likelihood that adoption of a particular technical
    approach would subject implementers to a greater or lesser risk of
    patent litigation;

  - discuss or present broad market potential or market requirements for
    informational purposes.

If you observe behavior in violation of these guidelines at an IETF
meeting, please do not be silent; formally object.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:05:31 -0500

> When I announced this mail list, I said that i would post a strawman to answer the question about what such a policy would include.  Here it is.

Shouldn't this be

    IETF participants MUST NOT, as part of the IETF standards process
(including all meetings and any communications
   covered under the IETF NOTE WELL):

Note that this is both a limitation and an extension of your text.
All we control is what people do in the IETF as part of the IETF
standards process, but there
is more to what we do than just participate in meetings. For example,
people should not discuss prices in IETF mailing lists.

> All IETF meeting participants MUST disclose patents or patent

s/meeting //

for the same reasons as above

> IETF meeting participants MAY:

s/meeting //

for the same reasons as above

> meeting, please do not be silent; formally object.

s/meeting/meeting, or in any other communications under the NOTE WELL,/

Otherwise,WFM.

Marshall

>
> _______________________________________________
> antitrust-policy mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:19:20 -0500

This particular item:

> IETF meeting participants MAY:
...
>     different technical approaches;

Looks incorrect to my non-lawyerly eye.  Discussing the licensing costs 
seems to get into discussion  which we should not have.  Discussing 
whether a given patent that has been disclosed applies / can be avoided 
seems to be within what I have been told the anti-trust rules are. 
However, b ased on my experience having watched courts interpret 
patents, I would tend to guess that such efforts are far less useful 
than people think they are.

The other piece that I have been told is important, that is missing from 
the prohibited lists is that the IETF MUST NOT engage in negotiating 
licensing terms.  The lawyers have told us repeatedly that such would be 
dangerous behavior.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:30:40 -0800

+1, especially (but not exclusively) with respect to the last paragraph.
Stephan

---

From: Jorge Contreras <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:32:38 -0600

> licensing terms.  The lawyers have told us repeatedly that such would be

Joel -- the law in this area is evolving and lawyers' stated positions
sometimes vary based on their companies' business strategies and their
clients wishes.  I have advised the IAOC that (1) the IETF, per se, should
not engage in licensing negotiations (meaning that the IESG, IAOC and other
bodies that are collectively representing the IETF community), but that (2)
individual companies MAY disclose and discuss licensing terms in the
context of IETF activities.  Not all lawyers will agree with point (2), and
some will disagree with vehemence.  However, you should know that the US
Dept. of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have both viewed required "ex
ante" disclosures of licensing terms in SDOs with favor (or, at least,
without disfavor).  I would be happy to discuss in greater detail with you,
and also invite any interested lawyers to the discussion.

Regards,
Jorge

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:37:08 -0500

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

On 1/15/2012 5:32 PM, Jorge Contreras wrote:
>     The other piece that I have been told is important, that is missing
>     from the prohibited lists is that the IETF MUST NOT engage in
>     negotiating licensing terms.  The lawyers have told us repeatedly
>     that such would be dangerous behavior.
>
>     Yours,
>     Joel
>
>
> clients wishes.  I have advised the IAOC that (1) the IETF, per se,
> should not engage in licensing negotiations (meaning that the IESG, IAOC
> and other bodies that are collectively representing the IETF community),
> but that (2) individual companies MAY disclose and discuss licensing
> terms in the context of IETF activities.  Not all lawyers will agree
> with point (2), and some will disagree with vehemence.  However, you
> should know that the US Dept. of Justice and Federal Trade Commission
> have both viewed required "ex ante" disclosures of licensing terms in
> SDOs with favor (or, at least, without disfavor).  I would be happy to
> discuss in greater detail with you, and also invite any interested
> lawyers to the discussion.
>
> Regards,
> Jorge
>

---

From: Jorge Contreras <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:57:28 -0600

On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]>wrote:

> IPR, and WGs which are unhappy with those terms.  So far, so good.  that is
> reality.
> 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.

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:00:10 -0800

Hi Jorge,

I'm one of those not having any trouble with ex ante disclosures of
licensing terms, as a uni-lateral statement of a right holder of the
monetary terms it expects to get from licensing essential claims.  However,
Joel wrote about "negotiating licensing terms", which, I believe, most or
all SDOs (even those specifically allowing ex ante disclosures) have
explicitly prohibited in their policies.  Let me quote from ETSI's antitrust
policy 
http://www.etsi.org/WebSite/document/Legal/ETSI_Guidelines_for_Antitrust_Com
pliance.pdf  (which, IMO and at present, is the most well developed
antitrust policy of any major SDO):
1. C.4.2  Voluntary, unilateral, public, ex ante disclosures of licensing
terms by licensors of essential IPRs, for the sole purpose of assisting
members in making informed (unilateral and independent) decisions in
relation to whether solutions best meet the technical objectives, are not
prohibited under ETSI Directives. It is therefore not prohibited for members
of an ETSI Technical Body to inform the Technical Body of the availability
of such licensing terms in compliance with Section 4.1 of the ETSI Guide on
IPRs. Where any such disclosures are made, any discussion and/or negotiation
of any licensing terms, including any price term, shall not be conducted in
ETSI. 

Or
> D.2 Please do not:
> 1. 
> 2. D.2.1  Engage in activities intended to restrain competition or harm
> consumers. 
> 3. 
> 4. D.2.2  Attempt to set or control price or terms of product, service or
> license fees in the course of any ETSI activity.
> 5. 
> 6. D.2.3  Discuss any disclosure of licensing price or terms, product or
> service price or terms, pricing methods, profits, profit margins, cost data,
> production plans, market share or territories in the course of any ETSI
> activity. 

Emphasis by me.

Best regards,
Stephan

From:  Jorge Contreras <[email-masked]>
Date:  Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:32:38 -0600
To:  "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Cc:  <[email-masked]>, Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: [antitrust-policy] An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

> The other piece that I have been told is important, that is missing from the
> prohibited lists is that the IETF MUST NOT engage in negotiating licensing
> terms.  The lawyers have told us repeatedly that such would be dangerous
> behavior.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel

Joel -- the law in this area is evolving and lawyers' stated positions
sometimes vary based on their companies' business strategies and their
clients wishes.  I have advised the IAOC that (1) the IETF, per se, should
not engage in licensing negotiations (meaning that the IESG, IAOC and other
bodies that are collectively representing the IETF community), but that (2)
individual companies MAY disclose and discuss licensing terms in the context
of IETF activities.  Not all lawyers will agree with point (2), and some
will disagree with vehemence.  However, you should know that the US Dept. of
Justice and Federal Trade Commission have both viewed required "ex ante"
disclosures of licensing terms in SDOs with favor (or, at least, without
disfavor).  I would be happy to discuss in greater detail with you, and also
invite any interested lawyers to the discussion.

Regards,
Jorge

_______________________________________________ antitrust-policy mailing
list [email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:09:14 -0800

Hi Jorge,

Date:  Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:57:28 -0600

[Š]

> 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.

That doesn't strike me as being the safest course of action.  What's wrong
the documenting the current practice (at least based on my IETF experience)
of not conducting licensing discussions in a Note Well setting?  What are
the reasons for taking the IMO bold step of not mentioning such an
obviously, and elsewhere prominently mentioned, point?

Thanks,
Stephan

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:24:34 +1300

> about this issue for the moment, and see how the law develops.

However, it would feel wrong to me if someone said (in a meeting or
on a mailing list) that XYZ Inc.'s license terms for a patent are
unreasonable *and* that they need to make them cheaper.

Saying that the terms are unreasonable and that the WG should therefore
seek an alternative technology that doesn't read on the patent
would feel OK.

    Brian

---

From: Jorge Contreras <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:25:03 -0600

> obviously, and elsewhere prominently mentioned, point?

Stephan -- you are right that many SDOs including ETSI prohibit collective
licensing discussions.  However, bear the timeline in mind.  The ETSI
policy was adopted, I believe, in 2007 and discussed heavily in 2006.

In late 2006, the US Dept of Justice issued a Business Review Letter at the
request of VITA (copy attached).  In note 27 of that letter, the DOJ says
that if VITA permitted "joint negotiation or discussion of licensing terms
among the working group members or with third parties", the DOJ "likely
would evaluate any antitrust concerns about them under the rule of
reason *because
such actions could be procompetitive*" (emphasis mine).  Thus, at least to
this US antitrust enforcement agency, joint negotiation of licensing terms
within an SDO *could* be viewed positively.  The FTC has indicated a
similar position.  The fact that ETSI and other SDOs have prohibited this
practice, I think, says more about the business preferences and positions
of their members than antitrust law.

Regards,
Jorge

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:32:24 +1300

...

...
>  - present or exchange proprietary information; or

I'd like to see this stated in a way that defines what "proprietary
information" means. It's quite common for people to describe proprietary
technology during IETF discussions, RFC 2026 describes how this fits into
the IETF process, and there are numerous RFCs that describe proprietary
technology. What type of proprietary information is problematic?

   Brian

---

From: Jorge Contreras <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:06:58 -0600

> technology. What type of proprietary information is problematic?

Brian -- it's not clear to me that this statement is necessary in this
document, as Section 5.2 of RFC 5378 already provides:

No information or document that is subject to any requirement of
confidentiality or any restriction on its dissemination may be
submitted as a Contribution or otherwise considered in any part ofthe
IETF Standards Process, and there must be no assumption of
anyconfidentiality obligation with respect to any Contribution.

---

From: Rigo Wenning <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:57:55 +0100

Jorge

On Sunday 15 January 2012 16:32:38 Jorge Contreras wrote:
> Not all lawyers will agree with point (2), and

FYI: 

There was a lot of discussion on ex-ante declarations in the EU and the 
Commission organized several workshops where the competition authorities were 
present. See:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/ict/standards/extended/event_en.htm

Some participants even suggested to carry licensing conditions in the patent 
registries. 

DG Competition has issued guidelines in Jan 2001 (we commented on the Draft)
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011XC0114(04):EN:HTML

See section 7: They say it is rather goal-driven than into little formalisms 
(who can discuss what) as currently discussed here.

So I'm rather with Stephan Wenger here. 

Best, 

Rigo

---

From: Jorge Contreras <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:42:32 -0600

Sent from my iPhone

> Some participants even suggested to carry licensing conditions in the patent 

Yes, I was one of the invited participants at that workshop and made one of the presentations.  Many good suggestions were made, including the one you mention. 

Regards
Jorge

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:30:22 -0500

>>    different technical approaches;

This point in the strawman has lead to a disagreement.  Some say that this should not be allowed, and they point to the policies of other SDOs that prohibit it.  On the other side of this issue, Jorge points out that these SDOs are being very conservative, and he says that it is not prohibited by current antitrust and competitive laws.

This leads me to a question: Does the IETF need to be able to include discussion of licensing costs?  In other words, is it sufficient to distinguish between 'royalty free' and 'not royalty free'?

Russ

---

From: Jorge Contreras <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:37:06 -0500

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:

> This point in the strawman has lead to a disagreement.  Some say that this
> should not be allowed, and they point to the policies of other SDOs that
> prohibit it.  On the other side of this issue, Jorge points out that these
> SDOs are being very conservative, and he says that it is not prohibited by
> current antitrust and competitive laws.
>
> This leads me to a question: Does the IETF need to be able to include
> discussion of licensing costs?  In other words, is it sufficient to
> distinguish between 'royalty free' and 'not royalty free'?
>
> Russ
>

Russ -- I'd rephrase this last question, as I believe that most people said
that mere *disclosure *of licensing costs did not bother them, but some
felt uncomfortable with *discussion *of licensing costs.  Maybe it is most
accurate to ask:

1.  Should disclosure of licensing terms be *allowed*?
2.  Should disclosure of licensing terms be *required*?
3.  If you said yes to either 1 or 2, should *discussion *of those
licensing costs be allowed?

Jorge

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:24:48 -0800

Useful questions.  My personal opinion inline.
Stephan

From:  Jorge Contreras <[email-masked]>
Date:  Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:37:06 -0500
To:  Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Cc:  <[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: [antitrust-policy] Should the IETF allow discussion of
licensing costs

[Š]

1.  Should disclosure of licensing terms be allowed?

Yes.  I'm not aware of any precedent suggesting that uni-lateral disclosure
of licensing terms, including monetary terms, is problematic (though I know
people who would disagree).  Voluntary ex ante is fine with me.

2.  Should disclosure of licensing terms be required?

You would have to change the IETF's IPR policy to create such a requirement.
I would argue against it, because it creates a higher hurdle of
participation compared to what we have today, and the likelihood of useful
information being made available is not very high.  ("I'm going to charge up
to 10% of your revenue.")

3.  If you said yes to either 1 or 2, should discussion of those licensing
costs be allowed?

No, for at least the reason that many (most?) individuals participating in
the IETF are neither authorized, nor qualified, nor particularly interested
to conduct such discussions on behalf of the right holder (which is, in most
cases, their employer).

As far as Russ' issue about royalty-free (RF) vs. royalty-bearing goes:
there is no need to "discuss" the monetary aspect of RF vs. non-RF, because
the situation is clear: for one, you probably need to pay, for the other,
probably not.    

Stephan

Jorge

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:14:02 -0500

> Russ -- I'd rephrase this last question, as I believe that most people said that mere disclosure of licensing costs did not bother them, but some felt uncomfortable with discussion of licensing costs.  Maybe it is most accurate to ask:
> 
> 3.  If you said yes to either 1 or 2, should discussion of those licensing costs be allowed?

Jorge:

The current IPR rules allow disclosure of terms.  Most organizations that do something other than the non-assert approach have chosen to commit to reasonable and non-discriminatory license.  That commitment does not actually tell us the cost.  This policy is not the place to require the disclosure of terms.  It a change is desired in that area, it ought to be discussed on the the IPR mail list.

So, if terms are disclosed, do we want to allow discussion of them?

Russ

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 21:21:03 +0000

> So, if terms are disclosed, do we want to allow discussion of them?

We need to be able to understand any disclosed terms. There are
various IPR disclosures that have been posted that I don't
understand. E.g. if the terms are RF for a standard but the
document is informational etc.

That kind of "discussion" needs to be allowed or else the
WG cannot really make a good decision.

I don't know how to sensibly draw a line between that, and
what we don't want to see, e.g. haggling over the price.

S.

---

From: Jorge Contreras <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:35:27 -0600

One way would be to prohibit only "collective negotiation of disclosed
royalty terms" or something along those lines.  Thus, discussion that
falls short of "collective negotiation" would be allowed.

On 1/20/12, Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> This point in the strawman has lead to a disagreement.  Some say that
>>> this should not be allowed, and they point to the policies of other SDOs
>>> that prohibit it.  On the other side of this issue, Jorge points out that
>>> these SDOs are being very conservative, and he says that it is not
>>> prohibited by current antitrust and competitive laws.
>>>
>>> Russ -- I'd rephrase this last question, as I believe that most people
>>> said that mere disclosure of licensing costs did not bother them, but
>>> some felt uncomfortable with discussion of licensing costs.  Maybe it is
>>> most accurate to ask:
>>>
>> The current IPR rules allow disclosure of terms.  Most organizations that
>> do something other than the non-assert approach have chosen to commit to
>> reasonable and non-discriminatory license.  That commitment does not
>> actually tell us the cost.  This policy is not the place to require the
>> disclosure of terms.  It a change is desired in that area, it ought to be
>> discussed on the the IPR mail list.
>>

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 21:42:39 +0000

I have no skin in the money games around the IETF these
days since I currently work in a University.

The same is true of a bunch of IETF participants of
various kinds, at various times over the duration of their
participation.

Why can't I just ignore all this, since I'm not being
anti-competitive even if I do some of these supposedly
bad things?

If (as I believe) I basically can, in terms of the
various known competition/anti-trust laws, then this
putative policy would cause us to be distinguishing
between IETF participants on the basis of their
employers (or lack thereof) which I think is a bad
thing.

As it happens, since I've currently got an IETF management
hat, I don't believe that I am currently able to ignore
the kinds of constraint. Read the above as if I had no
such hat. I also believe that one shouldn't do some of
these things since it'd be dumb. But that's also beside
the point.

S

---

From: Jorge Contreras <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:48:02 -0600

> days since I currently work in a University.

You may not have a personal financial interest, but some universities these
days make a lot of money from their patent licensing programs, and many
more would like to.  Also, universities can and are sued for antitrust
violations, and there is no 'academic' immunity from these sorts of claims.
 Thus, your employer/university is not that different than a company in
this regard.

> anti-competitive even if I do some of these supposedly

see above

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:48:51 -0500

> anti-competitive even if I do some of these supposedly

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think that the IETF should be in the
business of making these distinctions. Would it matter, for example,
if
you worked at a University that aggressively licensed their patents
for money ? That participated in licensing agencies such as MPEG-LA ?
What if your university was for-profit ? It is not the job of the IETF
to decide whether your University is "in the game" or not.

Regards
Marshall

>>> Based on the length of this thread, it is clear to me that more
>>> discussion is needed, but I do not think that the IETF mail list is the
>>> place to have it.  So, the antitrust-policy mail list has been set up to
>>> continue the discussion.
>>>
>>> It is clear to me that many people are questioning what would go in such
>>> a policy.  I have been working on a strawman.  It is short, but it answers
>>> the question about what topics would be covered.  I will post that strawman
>>> to the antitrust-policy mail list for discussion from two perspectives.
>>>  First, does the IETF want to adopt an antitrust policy.  Second, the
>>> strawman will provide the basis for a conversation on the content of such a
>>> policy if the consensus is that the IETF wants to adopt one.
>>>
>>> I'll wait a few days so that people have time to join the
>>> antitrust-policy mail list before the discussion begins.
>>
>>
>>
>> When I announced this mail list, I said that i would post a strawman to
>> answer the question about what such a policy would include.  Here it is.
>>
>> Russ
>>
>> === === === === ===
>>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:51:42 -0500

I am aware of patents held by individuals that happen to work at Universities.  I see them as single-person companies.  I am aware of a situation when one such person earned at least  $1M USD in a single year from royalties.  So, I do not think University status is a 'get out of jail free' card.

Russ

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:00:51 +0000

> falls short of "collective negotiation" would be allowed.

Maybe I'm too literal but I find it hard to see the difference
between a sequence of questions asking for more clarity and
collectively hassling the IPR holder to be nicer. (At least when
the clarifying questions are framed by the right kind of
subtle folks that are common around here;-)

S

>
> On 1/20/12, Stephen Farrell<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>>
>>

---

From: Jorge Contreras <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:05:27 -0600

> subtle folks that are common around here;-)
Ultimately making that distinction in terms of actual behavior would be a
question of fact for a court.  However, in terms of writing a policy, it
does not seem like the distinction is difficult to describe as outlined
above.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:06:27 +0000

On 01/20/2012 09:48 PM, Jorge Contreras wrote:
> days make a lot of money from their patent licensing programs,

We don't as it happens. But we do pay people to try (badly as
it turns out;-)

 > and many

I've never heard of that. Got some examples that might be relevant
to the IETF? (Not of IPR or being sued in general, but specific to
anti-trust/competition law.)

>   Thus, your employer/university is not that different than a company in

University is just one kind of employer. Some people self-fund
in various ways.

My point is that this policy assumes that all participants can
in principle be anti-competition which seems like nonsense to
me.

I hate building a policy based on nonsense.

S

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:05:32 -0500

> about this issue for the moment, and see how the law develops.

Hey, maybe the IETF should become a leader here and push the envelope
a bit and maybe even establish some case law in the process!!!

NOT, in case anyone thinks I'm being serious.

And I agree with those that wonder what problem we would be solving by
encouraging the IETF get into the license negotiation business.

Thomas

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:07:54 -0500

IANAL. That said...

> 1.  Should disclosure of licensing terms be *allowed*?

Yes. Statements of facts should never be disallowed.

> 2.  Should disclosure of licensing terms be *required*?

I suspect such a requirement would be completely unworkable and
useless in practice. Can't license terms vary from one agreement to
another?  Aren't they often entangled in multiple patents and various
business things? Aren't those agreements typically private between the
parties involved?

Moreover, if the licensing terms differ for the same IPR at various
times (and for different parties), how on earth can an IETF engineer
make sense out of it all?

What I think the IETF participants need to be able to say is "the
licensing terms are a problem for me" (without getting into details).
... "therefore I am opposed to ..." or something like that.

That is what we (in theory) do with documents moving up the standards
track that have IPR in them. AFAIK, that hasn't been
unworkable. (True, it may never have come up, but if licensing *had*
been an issue with a particular technology, I expect the issue would
have been raised.)

> 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?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Thomas

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:12:30 -0500

> I hate building a policy based on nonsense.

Do you think that Universities should not have to file IPR disclosures ? If
I get a patent on technology used in RFC X, can I decide that I don't
need to file
an IPR disclosure because I don't intend to charge royalties  with
anybody in the WG ?

I don't see the difference. The IETF shouldn't be in the job of making
these sorts of decisions.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Jorge Contreras <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:14:43 -0600

> anti-trust/competition law.)

I don't have examples that involve standards IPR (but I haven't looked too
hard yet).  I do know that universities have been sued for antitrust
violations like colluding to fix tuition rates, etc.  I can dig up some of
these cases if you're really interested.

> in principle be anti-competition which seems like nonsense to

Unless someone is participating in IETF purely out of personal interest or
scientific curiosity, and neither he/she nor his/her employer has any
financial interest, then antitrust violations can be committed.  I suspect
this category of people is pretty small.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:16:53 +0000

Hiya,

> an IPR disclosure because I don't intend to charge royalties  with

I think participants are responsible for handling IPR
declarations which is right regardless of employer.

But this is about anti-trust not IPR declarations. If there's
no difference then we don't need any new policy.

What University has been part of an anti-trust action was
my question. I don't know of any. (I could maybe imagine
something related to genetics perhaps but even there I don't
recall competition law being involved, nor an SDO.)

> these sorts of decisions.

I don't know what you mean there.

S

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:18:18 -0500

> in principle be anti-competition which seems like nonsense to

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. 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.

Thomas

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:21:34 +0000

> these cases if you're really interested.

I don't think that'd be relevant, so don't bother unless you
do. If there are no relevant examples then that's relevant I
guess.

> this category of people is pretty small.

I think it'd help if we recognised that we're dealing with
extreme hypotheticals here, in terms of potential anti-trust
related actions for anyone not working for a large company.
I would be interested in any counter example involving an
SDO and something that's not a large company.

Hence this putative policy is practically distinguishing
between IETF participants on the basis of the type of their
current employer which is worrisome. (To me at least.)

S

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:31:33 +1300

> IANAL. That said...

Ditto

> 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

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:32:11 +0000

On 01/20/2012 10:18 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Stephen Farrell<[email-masked]>  writes:
>
> 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

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.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:47:29 -0500

> 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.

> 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: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:32 PM
> To: Thomas Narten
> Cc: [email-masked]; Russ Housley; Jorge Contreras
> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
> 
> 
>

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:53:04 +0000

> 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

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:02:15 -0500

> >>>> in principle be anti-competition which seems like nonsense to

Hmm ... Russ's second paragraph was:

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.

Thanks,
--David

> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:53 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:09:57 +0000

> 	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].)

> (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

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:26:57 -0500

> 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

> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 6:10 PM
> To: Black, David

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:36:42 +0000

> exercise for the reader, aside from noting that it would diverge dramatically at the

And therein lies the danger. If we were to try get into a position
where the IETF says more than "not really" then we're probably heading
towards paid membership. (More than "not really," implies that we
can eject folks and their sock-puppets far more efficiently than now,
which implies we know who everyone is and who they represent...)

If there's a way to usefully say "don't be bold about anti-trust" that
doesn't sit at the top of that slippery slope then I'd be interested
in seeing that.

S

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:48:04 -0500

> which implies we know who everyone is and who they represent...)

What difference do you see between paid membership and paid meeting fees?

Thanks,
--David

> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 6:37 PM
> To: Black, David

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:00:12 +0000

> What difference do you see between paid membership and paid meeting fees?

Different debate. Wrong list too I think. This list is not about
changing how folks participate in the IETF. But a quick answer
would be: not everyone goes to meetings.

S

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Jan 2012 00:30:45 -0000

>What difference do you see between paid membership and paid meeting fees?

Most of the IETF's work happens on mailing lists like this one.  I
realize it would take a dimwitted set of conspirators to do their
conspiring in a written medium that has a public realtime archive, but
that hasn't stopped people before.

So anyway, can someone please explain what problem we're trying to solve here.

Is it to reduce the chance that the IETF is involved in an antitrust legal case?

Is it to reduce the chance that IETF participants get themselves or their employers
involved in a legal case?

Is it to improve awareness of anti-trust law, to help people be good citizens?

Something else?

R's,
John

PS: "All of the above" is not a helpful answer, since that would equally apply to
the anti-marijuana policy.

---

From: "George Willingmyre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:44:25 -0500

John, When we began discussing this late last year, I  was also asking what 
problem we were aiming at.

I  have strived to reconstruct the answer from last December  below

>From the point of view of what was the closest thing to an example of a real 
problem  from outside of IETF  there is a current lawsuit where it is 
alleged two standards developing organisations have failed to " monitor and 
enforce the SSO Rules  ...  "  and more see below.  As best I know this 
litigation is on going so there are no conclusions. It seems to me that 
this    example  points to  the importance of  participants  following 
procedures of the standards  organizations.   I leave for discussion how 
best to address this sort of problem if it exists  in IETF.

  Here is the trail

> From: IETF Chair [[email-masked]]
>
> The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought
> to have an antitrust policy.  To address this need, a lawyer is
> needed

And then to get a little more targeted on a specific  exact problem  Russ 
elaborated:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: IETF Chair
To: Ted Hardie
Cc: IETF ; IESG
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

Ted:

    The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought 
to have an antitrust policy.  To address this need, a lawyer is needed.  As 
a way forward, I suggest that IASA pay a lawyer to come up with an initial 
draft, and then this draft be brought to the community for review and 
comment (and probably revision).  I think a new mail list should be used for 
the discussion.  Once the new mail list reaches rough consensus on the 
antitrust policy document, I suggest using the usual process for adopting 
the policy as an IETF BCP.

    What do others think?  I am open to suggestions for an alternative 
approach.

  Sorry, can you expand on the threat model here?  Are we developing one in 
order to defend against some specific worry about our not having one? 
Because it has become best practice in other SDOs?  Because the insurance 
agent wishes to see something in particular?

  I hesitate to develop something that we have not needed in the past unless 
it is clear what benefit it gives us.  In particular, if we develop one 
without some particular characteristic, do we lose the benefits of being 
where we are now?

Recent suits against other SDOs is the source of the concern.  The idea is 
to make it clear which topics are off limits at IETF meetings and on IETF 
mail lists.  In this way, if such discussions take place, the good name of 
the IETF can be kept clean.

Russ

And then Jorge provided a real case that points toward participants 
following procedures

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Jorge Contreras
To: GTW
Cc: IETF Chair ; Ted Hardie ; IETF ; IESG
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:35 PM, GTW <[email-masked]> 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:

"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."

George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
President, GTW Associates
Spencerville, MD USA 20868
301.421.4138
www.gtwassociates.com

---

From: Rigo Wenning <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:58:06 +0100

Hi all, 

I think concerning this University topic, you're talking past each other IMHO. 
While it may not make sense to exclude certain actors in the policy, some 
actors may really not be affected at all. 
In Europe, most of the University and research is publicly organized. 
Sometimes with a corporation owned by the government. This actor, by 
definition, has a regulated monopoly. And they normally do not sell products to 
the market. 
Anti-trust (competition law) is to avoid collusion between actors to the 
detriment of the consumer. As someone from DG Competition put it in some 
meeting in Brussels: 
"Every time people from different companies of the same market segment come 
together, we are nervous. Standardization is actually good for competition. 
But it has to be open and transparent so that everybody sees that the venue is 
not abused to shorten the competition." 

This says several things: 

1/ The IETF is very open and transparent. This is already 95% of your anti-
trust policy IMHO. If people are organizing their collusion in public and 
anti-competition forces see that, they get in trouble. Perhaps some guidelines 
for SME's not having a legal department would be good, but a full policy with 
formalisms should only be put in place after discussion with the competition 
authorities would be my suggestion from the outside.

2/ Hidden and secret meetings can be organized everywhere at every time. The 
difference is, whether the IETF is furthering such secret meetings to create 
secret agreements. This goes back into point 1/ as to how well the process is 
followed and whether there can be ways around the transparency in the process. 

Best, 

Rigo

P.S. We talked to the anti-trust authorities when we established our patent 
policy and they told us there are no worries. So it is good to ask them 
questions like "is our process transparent enough?" They may just say "yes".

On Friday 20 January 2012 16:48:51 Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> >>> place to have it.  So, the antitrust-policy mail list has been set
> >>> up to continue the discussion.
> >>> 
> >>> It is clear to me that many people are questioning what would go in
> >>> such a policy.  I have been working on a strawman.  It is short,
> >>> but it answers the question about what topics would be covered.  I
> >>> will post that strawman to the antitrust-policy mail list for
> >>> discussion from two perspectives. First, does the IETF want to
> >>> adopt an antitrust policy.  Second, the strawman will provide the
> >>> basis for a conversation on the content of such a policy if the
> >>> consensus is that the IETF wants to adopt one.
> >>>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:12:10 -0500

Actually, I would parse it somewhat differently.
The behaviors to be avoided are to be avoided by everyone.
It is just that it is hard to imagine an incentive for some participants 
to engage in such behavior.
So much the better.  Then they will comply with the guidelines.

There is, as far as I can tell, no need for the description to recognize 
different classes of participants.  Which is good as I do not want to be 
classifying participants by their sponsorship.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Jorge Contreras <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:59:13 -0600

> questions like "is our process transparent enough?" They may just say

I'm just wondering who "we" are.  I've been representing the IETF since
1998 and don't recall any discussion with EU competition authorities about
our IPR policy.  Did this happen before my time, maybe in the RFC 2026 era?
 If so, I'd love to hear more about who participated in this discussion,
what was asked, and what the authorities said.

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:23:56 -0800

I think Rigo is referring to the W3C.  For those who do not know, Rigo is
W3C's counsel.
Stephan

From:  Jorge Contreras <[email-masked]>
Date:  Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:59:13 -0600
To:  Rigo Wenning <[email-masked]>
Cc:  <[email-masked]>, Russ Housley <[email-masked]>,
Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>, Stephen Farrell
<[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no
competitive interests?

> questions like "is our process transparent enough?" They may just say "yes".

I'm just wondering who "we" are.  I've been representing the IETF since 1998
and don't recall any discussion with EU competition authorities about our
IPR policy.  Did this happen before my time, maybe in the RFC 2026 era?  If
so, I'd love to hear more about who participated in this discussion, what
was asked, and what the authorities said.
_______________________________________________ antitrust-policy mailing
list [email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Jan 2012 18:53:56 -0000

>The behaviors to be avoided are to be avoided by everyone.

Only if your fear that Someone Might Sue is greater than your desire
to get work done.

Antitrust and competition law are about actions in which companies
that would normally be competing don't.  I listed the usual ones in my
revised strawman, price fixing, bid rigging, refusal to deal, tying,
and market allocations.

If you aren't an organization that could plausibly do those things,
you needn't worry about it.  If I worked for Oracle, I would be
careful about discussing prices of databases (or workstations or
whatever else Oracle sells these days.)  If I worked for a university
that sells none of those things, theres no competition for me to
restrain.

I realize that Oracle people would proabably be uncomfortable in a
room where other people were discussing database prices, because
someone might claim it was a form of signalling.  But depending on the
circumstances, it might make more sense for the people having the
discussion to stop, or for the Oracle person to leave so the
discussion can continue.  There's no policy that can anticipate all
the situations like that and prescribe rules for them.  In a situation
like that, it's fine for the Oracle person to say "if you have that
conversation, I'll have to leave", and either outcome could be OK.

R's,
John

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:10:50 -0500

> revised strawman, price fixing, bid rigging, refusal to deal, tying,

That looked like a reasonable strawman (another version of "Don't be
bold"), and I'm not sure how much I care about whether we call the
result a policy, guidelines or an FAQ ... however ...

> you needn't worry about it.

Not exactly. Hypothetically, if an anti-trust suit were filed over a
decision made in an IETF WG meeting, everyone in that meeting could
find the legal system intruding into their professional lives.

> If I worked for Oracle, I would be

Hypothetical opposing counsel may have a second opinion on that topic ;-).

There is a potential conspiracy that hypothetical opposing counsel

could accuse everyone in the meeting of participating in, and that may
be enough to make your life quite "interesting".  Absence of an obvious
financial interest in the outcome may not suffice to quickly convince
opposing counsel to leave you alone.

Thanks,
--David

________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of John Levine [[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 1:53 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?

R's,
John

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Jan 2012 22:27:55 -0000

>find the legal system intruding into their professional lives.

That's what I summarized as Someone Might Sue.

Here in the US, that's always a hypothetical problem.  Sometimes it's
even a real one, but I don't think it's worth a lot of effort to deal
with unless we have reason to think that there is a concrete problem
that we can solve in a concrete way.

I don't think "never ever talk about anything that anyone might sue
about" is a concrete solution to anything.

R's,
John

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:27:27 -0500

> about" is a concrete solution to anything.

I don't think that's being proposed.

OTOH, not holding discussions that violate anti-trust or competition
law seems like a good idea, and I believe your strawman proposal
includes that idea.

Thanks,
--David

________________________________
From: John Levine [[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 5:27 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Black, David
Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?

R's,
John

---

From: Rigo Wenning <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:02:32 +0100

> law seems like a good idea, and I believe your strawman proposal

And here goes your tautological circle. 

Rigo