W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > April 2017

Re: Response from Director to formal objection "Turn off EME by default and activate only with express permission from user"

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:55:16 -1100
Message-ID: <CAE1ny+4DskhZ+8roakPQecXMSqMYmxa9fgyx2WViPNcpyHWzqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 7:46 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:

> Harry
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 2017, at 11:39 , Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Google, please define collusion:
> > >
> > > col·lu·sion
> > > kəˈlo͞oZHən/
> > > noun
> > >         • secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in
> order to cheat or deceive others.
> > >
> > > Wild accusations of this kind are unacceptable. This conversation is
> at an end.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think that again you are going off topic to avoid the topic at hand.
> >
> > You made an accusation against members of *illegal activity*, which you
> have neither withdrawn nor apologized for. In fact, below, you dig in
> deeper. Perhaps you could stay on *that* topic long enough to withdraw the
> accusation and apologize? Otherwise, as I say, this conversation is at an
> end.
> >
> >
> > I said, contra Mark's agrument that browser vendors are neutral, that
> there is collusion
>
> OK, earlier you accused me of not reading.  The *definition* of the word
> you used — collusion — is that it is secret or illegal activity intended to
> cheat or deceive, and I gave you verbatim one such definition above. Did
> you read it?
>

David - I don't have at hand the precise dictionaries you do. For example,
Wikipedia states collusion is "sometimes illegal." Obviously, it would vary
by jurisdiction.  I argued that it's likely W3C's 'working in the open'
defuses anti-trust concerns, but that is for lawyers courts to decide, not
me. You have at least one interested investigation starting from Europe on
EME. That being said, ignoring or overriding concerns from other groups in
a standardization process could weaken any argument that the W3C is an
effective anti-trust mechanism.


>
> > between the browser and other parts of a company and so browsers are not
> neutral. I see no reason to apologize for such an obvious statement, and I
> would appreciate it if you used a measured and reasonable tone.
>
> I ask you to withdraw an accusation that browsers are engaged in activity
> that is secret or illegal, and intended to cheat or deceive, and you
> respond by describing my request as not taking a measured and reasonable
> tone?
>


Yes, because above. You are throwing around accusations based on a
dictionary definition you find convenient to avoid the objection. Do you
think browser implementers are always neutral?

I would prefer a reasonable argument to emotional demands for apologies and
intentional misreading of words, and I do not apologize nor retract the
rather self-evident statement that the various parts of components, which
include browsers, work in ways that can indeed be collusion (see EC ruling
on Google link earlier) and can but are of course not necessarily illegal.
I for one am thankful that the W3C standardization process helps companies
avoid anti-trust and patent issues. For this case of possible anti-trust
issues involving EME, we'll have to wait and see but the motion has already
started at European Parliament.

   cheers,
      harry


>
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2017 18:55:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:49:19 UTC