Linux Networks & the Competition Act (Was: Fwd: [d at DCC] Competition Act)

[Evan Leibovitch]

Scott Elcomb wrote:
> (1) Because of their virtual monopoly, just about all companies will
> have at least one software package that can only run under windows.
>   
I find this one to be a bit of a logic leap that requires some hard
evidence.
Especially on the server side, Linux/Apache is as prevalent as Windows/IIS.
>From a database standpoint. DB2 and Oracle and other server tools gladly
run under non-Windows OSs.

In any case, I note that Wine is now at release quality and runs quite a
few Windows-platform apps.

> (2) Many small companies use only the version of windows that came on the machine when purchased.
>   
True to a point. Upgrades are being encouraged, and as we know Microsoft
too has had very little success getting their installed base of XP users
to upgrade to Vista. However, installing Linux post-purchase is not as
difficult as it used to be so the Linux option -- which can be had at no
additional cost, except for installation time -- is certainly viable.

> (3) Due to MS market dominance, MS can insist upon payments from OEMs
> for their software, and third party software vendors are willing to pay
> to have their MSWin compatible software included in OEM machines. The
> net result is that the cost of windows on a OEM machine is effectively
> negative, as can be witnessed when doing online price comparisons.
>   
Nothing is stopping a Linux vendor for doing such a thing also, though
they will likely not succeed as well as MS.

It is important to separate "smart (for them) business practice" from
"illegal monopoly".

> (4) MS EULA prohibits the insertion of virtual machine software between
> the physical hardware and the operating system on low end OEM supplied
> operating systems. This effectively eliminates the ability for Linux (or
> other OSes) to compete (see point 1)
>   
That's another substantial logic leap.

You don't need a virtualization engine to replace Windows with Linux, or
even to have them coexist on the same system.

> The last point I believe meets the definition of tied selling under the competition act
>   
I can see the path of logic in this argument and there's some reasoning
to it. However, the gulf between shady and illegal is an extremely wide
one. No question that MS has done what it can to reduce interoperability
and maximize barriers to competitors -- it has done that to IBM OS/2 and
Apple even before Linux existed. But it's not clear that the leap to
establish this as illegal activity will be easy or even possible.

The theory is the easy part. The hard part will be getting the research
and evidence to prove it.

- Evan

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists