Hacker News Reader

Comment by anotherhue | Hacker News Reader

This matters about as much as the US defying the UN. Chrome needs to be spun out.

Has there ever been an anti-trust suit on the grounds that an actor is using their market dominance to subvert a standards process/body? Is there any legal precedent or standing for such a thing in the US or elsewhere?

I don't think web standards work that way. Often times we'll see things get deployed and implemented before they become standards anyway. And it's not as if W3C has any authority. But even if W3C had any authority, Google and Apple would just pay off every seat.

No, but there should have been one when Microsoft infiltrated the standards committee and forced the Open XML (OOXML) "standard":

https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-29194320070828

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-standard/micros...

https://www.computerworld.com/article/2548569/ecma-approves-...

Not a perfect example, but the UK CMA took issue with the removal of third party cookies from Chrome because of concern about anti competitive impact on digital advertising and managed to extract some pledges from Google.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-regulator-accepts-google...

Heh, yeah or the UN defying anybody who is a member of their own security council.

Considers who was on the other side of the military conflict in which the first, only, and still active UN military command was involved as a direct party and...

Not sure I understand your point.

China at the time referred to the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan. And the USSR's delegation to the UN was boycotting the UNSC entirely (and immediately began using their power to prevent any further UNSC resolutions regarding Korea being passed as soon as they stopped boycotting).

I like the idea of spinning Chrome out, but how would that work in practice?

Seems like making a browser isn’t profitable at all, and so the hypothetical Chrome Browser Corporation would probably quickly turn to evil tracking schemes as well.

The hypothetical Chrome Browser Corporation will likely become like Firefox, trying not upset whoever gives them a search deal.

In what ways does Mozilla try not to upset Google?

They do implement ad blocking/anti fingerprinting. Mozilla obviously has to continue setting Google as the default search engine.

Just so we're on the same page, it has some precedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars

If Blink and Chrome were to be spun out, it should probably be into something like a non-profit organization funded by sponsors, with a model similar to that of Blender. The only difference is that given Blink/Chrome's dominance, it'd be necessary to bar Alphabet and other companies with overwhelming power in web tech from becoming sponsors to help prevent conflict of interest.

This could have the effect of normalizing corporate investment in FOSS web engines and browsers, which could benefit Mozilla as well.

> This matters about as much as the US defying the UN.

Are those accidentally reversed?

No. The US regularly defies and ignores the UN with no consequences. One example is that the US doesn't recognize the International Criminal Court.

Right. So the US defying the UN matters in terms of real-world effect, but the UN defying the US doesn't.

In the analogy here, wouldn't the W3C be the UN defiantly making toothless proclamations that Chrome (the US) can simply ignore? That would be my understanding of it, since "mattering about as much" implies not mattering at all.

The ICC is independent of the UN. Also its treaty based so you have to consent to its juridsiction at least once (or have the UN security council give it juridsiction) so of course there are no consequences for countries that haven't signed up. Anyways this is a really bad example (you are probably trying to reference invade hauge act, but even still that doesn't fit.

US does ignore UN in other ways, but the ICC isnt an example of that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

The UN and the ICC are two different organizations (maybe you're thinking of the ICJ?), and the US isn't party to the Rome Statute either. That said, yes this law is dumb.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com