Re: [patwg-charter] All Working Group members agree to licence input data for specifications on FRAND terms (#30)

Aram,

I think the anti trust guidelines that you reference are out of date and don’t reflect the renewed interest of DOJ into standards bodies.

 I was offering to help up date them with whoever else is interested in doing that - but accept that your group operating under out of date antitrust guidance is not reassuring for you.

With kind regards,

Tim


Tim Cowen | Chair Antitrust Practice
ddl +44 20 7332 5645<tel:+44%2020%207332%205645>  m +44 78 0224 1629<tel:+44%2078%200224%201629>
***@***.***
Preiskel & Co LLP, 4 King's Bench Walk, Temple, London EC4Y 7DL
t +44 20 7332 5640<tel:+44%2020%207332%205640>  f +44 20 7332 5641<tel:+44%2020%207332%205641>
www.preiskel.com<http://www.preiskel.com/>   personal profile<http://www.preiskel.com/people/tim-cowen/>

Chambers & Partners Competition, IT & Telecoms Leading Firm 2018
Legal 500 Technology, Media and Telecoms Leading Firm 2017
WhosWhoLegal Telecoms Media & Tech Leading Lawyers 2017
Global Law Experts Communications Law Firm of the Year 2016















Preiskel & Co LLP is a law firm authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and is incorporated in England & Wales with partnership number OC306371 and Registered Office at 4 King's Bench Walk, Temple, London EC4Y 7DL.  A list of members is available for inspection at the office.  The SRA rules can be found at http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page.

Preiskel & Co LLP takes the privacy and security of personal data and confidential information seriously. The content of this e-mail, including any attachments, is intended only for the recipient(s) named above, and may be confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected against disclosure. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify us ***@***.******@***.***> and delete it from your system.



On 30 Jun 2022, at 16:05, Aram Zucker-Scharff ***@***.***> wrote:



@jwrosewell<https://github.com/jwrosewell>:

The "input data" is the data needed to implement proposals that the Working Group create. [...] Therefore the answer depends on each proposals.

This seems to me to be a strong argument towards the consideration of FRAND on a proposal by proposal basis. Trying to create a FRAND guarantee in the charter when it must be applied differently to different proposals on the basis of their design and when our understanding of its application shifts on the basis of proposals' functionality seems to be bad process. It may not even apply to some proposals.

@timcowen<https://github.com/timcowen>

You make reference to the antitrust guidelines of the W3C. They are something that ought to be reviewed at the present time and that might be something to be picked up with appropriate support. I would of course be happy to help in that endeavour.

I would repeat my earlier question while also noting that not only are we automatically bound by the W3C guidelines and reference them explicitly at the top of CG meetings, we also have, in response to @jwroswell's input, explicitly added and noted we are bound by them in the charter. Is there some additional picking up you would like us to do in regards to the antitrust guidelines that we have not yet done. I would be happy to accept your help in making the application of W3C rules in the charter as clear as possible.

—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://github.com/patcg/patwg-charter/issues/30#issuecomment-1171335829>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AZYERR6SMLBLKWTIQP24WJTVRWZS7ANCNFSM52GCAG3A>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by timcowen
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/patwg-charter/issues/30#issuecomment-1171444221 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Thursday, 30 June 2022 16:39:57 UTC