Hi John,
There are several orders associated with the settlement agreement -
which is relevant here. You need a PACER account to access the docket.
It was a complicated case that stretched over several years and cost
ETSI a considerable amount of money - and involved several companies.
Trueposition in its complaint alleged that the 3GPP SA standards were
being manipulated through a conspiracy among the named parties to
exclude Trueposition from the marketplace. The other parties must have
incurred similar or greater expenses. The case reshaped the antitrust
environment for standards setting bodies. See
http://sullivanlaw.net/standard-setting-org-may-be-liable-for-antitrust-violations-of-member-leaders/.
When the IETF role shifted from government/academic to public markets in
the early 90s, the antitrust exposure increased significantly and the
Internet Society purchased insurance to cover those in the IETF decision
making process. Presumably, that still exists. Circa 2012, the IETF
briefly visited the subject of antitrust culpability with a group that
exchanged some email and hosted a BOF and then went quiet. See
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/antitrust/about/
The Trueposition v. Ericsson case occurred after that point and was
ground breaking. Antitrust law in this arena continues to evolve. Even
individuals can be held accountable. Over the past year, the
competition enforcement bodies on both sides of the Atlantic have made
it clear they are concerned about anti-competitive actions in the
internet sector and have established investigatory task forces.
TLS is particular has a history going back to 1986 when the platform was
first announced by the USG and the TLS specification was instantiated
initially in the GOSIP standards and then in ITU/ISO standards. The are
many TLS variants and platforms that produce revenue in the marketplace
and bring competition to the industry. It seems best to avoid increased
antitrust exposure by potentially restraining TLS competition via
standards body activities and suggesting that certain platforms are
"mandates."
--tony
On 2020-03-07 9:23 PM, John Levine wrote:
In article <b08c7a20-6949-4776-18d8-58f4c6e39...@netmagic.com> you write:
-=-=-=-=-=-
One comment. Perhaps some caution might be advised in light of the
antitrust court order in /Trueposition v. Ericsson/. Ref. Order in Case
No. 2:11-cv-4574, (U.S. E.D. Pa, 14 Jul 2014).
That's a single page dismissing 3GPP from the case. Really?
https://ia800306.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.paed.426719/gov.uscourts.paed.426719.296.0.pdf
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
