OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oiic-formation-discuss message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Level of detail needed in a TC Charter

I don't have the time, or the technical training, to become involved in
this discussion list but have tried to keep up with it at a high level for
my own education and interest.  That said I feel that somebody with a legal
background needs to step in and say a few words in response to Paul/Marbux.
The following comments are mine alone and do not represent any statement by

This is one of thousands of standards-related discussion groups that are
ongoing at any point in time.  There are hundreds of accredited standards
organizations and consortia in the ITC industry.  Together with
organizations in all other industries, they together have created a million
or more standards.  The amount of antitrust litigation that has ever arisen
from such discussions, working groups, and standards adoption is
vanishingly small, and invariably relates to plainly egregious and abusive
behavior.   Every standards group, including OASIS, has a short antitrust
policy that reminds participants not to discuss prices, allocate markets,
engage in boycotts and so on.

I don't know why Paul is making such a big deal out of this, and see no
reason why people need to pay attention to his comments on legal topics.
There are enough veterans on this listserv to prevent the discussions from
going anywhere worrisome that I have no concerns on legal issues.  And if I
notice that anyone heading onto thin ice I will certainly point it out.

Speaking again just for myself, I don't recall any call  for someone to
"educate" this group on issues of law, especially someone who is not by
training an antitrust lawyer.  I disagree with much of what Paul has stated
here, but do not have time or any intention of getting into an endless
debate with Paul on legal issues.  Paul, you will want to respond to this
post, I am sure, but I want you to know in advance that I will not respond,
as, like Pamela Jones, I've been down that road before.  It's always long,
and it never gets to any endpoint worth reaching.

It appears to me that Paul's self-appointed role is impeding the progress
of this group, and I think that this is a shame.  My suggestion would be
that Paul can, of course, continue to post his remarks and that those that
have an interest in his remarks should of course read and discuss them, if
they wish.  But that the rest of us that are interested in seeing real
progress be made on a common and important goal should not allow ourselves
to be distracted by these endless off-topic, often misleading, and always
distracting posts.


<m42tom-odf@yahoo.com> wrote on 06/14/2008 09:47:26 PM:

> marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Under antitrust law, the "audience" is the range of
> >consumers whose needs will be fulfilled by the market
> >created by the standard to be developed....
> >If we don't have that as an agreed goal, the
> >criminal penalty exposure is up to 10 years in federal
> >prison and/or a $1 million fine per participant.
> >The civil liability exposure is treble the damages
> >of all co-conspirators' acts, with each
> >co-conspirator liable for the entire amount individually.
> I'm just an interested lurker, and I'm not a lawyer, but
> this sounds like FUD to me.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: oiic-formation-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.
> oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: oiic-formation-discuss-help@lists.
> oasis-open.org

Any tax information or written tax advice contained herein (including any attachments) is not intended to be and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.  (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)

Electronic mail from Gesmer Updegrove LLP, 40 Broad Street, Boston, MA 02109. Voice: (617) 350-6800, Fax: (617) 350-6878.  This communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the addressee.  It may contain information which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient or such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Christopher O'Sullivan at  (617) 350-6800 and notify the sender by electronic mail.  Please expunge this communication without making any copies.  Thank you for your cooperation.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]