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

[CLIFFORD ILKAY]

On 16/06/09 08:25 PM, Darryl Moore wrote:
> If you are running a pure Linux network, then the chances are good that
> you do not want all those extra networking features. The only reason for
> wanting Windows in the first place is because some third party apps
> demand it. (See one of my previous posts about the MS monopoly) In this
> context the bare minimum Windows machine is desireable. Yes, and that
> would be the Home version. Being forced to pay a extra $50 -$90 just so
> you can have that bridge software puts a significant dent in Linux's
> competitiveness on the desktop.

Your tortured logic escapes me. You're suggesting Microsoft charges
*more* to put Linux at a competitive disadvantage? So why doesn't Red
Hat, Novell, Ubuntu, Mandriva, etc. charge *even more* to put Windows at
a "competitive disadvantage"? Every company seeks to maximize its
profits. So what if Microsoft charges what the market will bear? No one
forces companies or individuals to buy MS products.

>> In any case, your position regarding monopoly is significantly weaker
>> now than it was even just a year ago.
>>
> 
> 
> No it's not. In the above scenario, many companies would argue, "well if
> I have to spend that much any way on any proportion of my network, then
> I might as well make the whole network windows".

Or they could just as easily say, "I don't want to spend that much so
I'd rather use Linux." Nonetheless, I think trying to sell Linux on
price for most businesses is a lost cause. There has to be something
more than "we're cheaper than the other guy". That's not a sustainable
competitive advantage, even if your product supposedly costs zero, which
it really doesn't.

> That is why these
> license restrictions exist in the first place. To make the alternatives
> more expensive.

That is your wishful (mis)interpretation. An equally valid and a more
likely one is product differentiation. Cheap product, fewer features.
More expensive product, more features. The most expensive product, all
the features.

> It isn't like Microsoft actually has to do anything
> different with the software to enable it to run under a VM. It is a
> totally arbitrary restriction. They might as well tell you that on their
> Home version you have to use their AV software. If you want to use
> Norton, well, you are just going to have to pay MS more money for the
> privilege. I'm sure you would see the latter as being a very
> anti-competitive abuse of their position, but it is the exact same
> argument for the former too.

But MS doesn't force you to use MS AV. You're free to turn your Core 2
Duo into a 486/33 by installing Norton AV if you like.

>> The rise of netbooks -- and the number of companies offering Linux
>> pre-installs, as well as the number of Linux providers creating
>> innovative and customized versions for the small laptops -- are
>> Microsoft's bigest OS nightmares right now. But they also constitute a
>> solid defence against claims of monopoly abuse. If people prefer Windows
>> that's their choice, they now have many options. Enough Linux systems
>> have sold to allow anyone to make the case that if you want a system
>> that is very useful yet free of any Microsoft components, you can get
>> one fairly easily.
>>
> 
> You obviously haven't been into a Futureshop or TigerDirect store
> lately. Good luck getting a yourself a Linux Netbook these days. I think
> there are a host of reasons for this, but I think that is the topic of
> another thread.
> 
> 
>> You also have business and governments that are increasingly mandating a
>> level playing field for open source -- just look at Vancouver's recent
>> initiatives. Even the US department of Homeland Security is actively
>> supporting open source development: 
>> http://www.oss-institute.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=338&Itemid=47
>>
>> In other words, your window of opportunity is essentially closed; you're
>> welcome to pursue your claim but don't expect more than polite dismissal.
>> (Where were you when Microsoft was REALLY abusing their position --
>> during the ODF/OOXML feuds?)
>>
> 
> But these organizations are still required to be fiscally prudent. If MS
> can artificially raise the cost of the competition then they will still
> have the advantage.

There is that wacky "let's raise the price to shut out competitors"
concept again. How is it that organizations that have to be fiscally
prudent, as if there were many that didn't have to be, would tolerate
these "artificial" price increases? Are you suggesting that the demand
for Windows is inelastic, like the demand for a necessity of life?

> Most of these initiative have much stronger wording
> on Open Standards then they do regarding Open Source.
> 
> 
>> My main point is this: If you have all this advocacy energy to burn, why
>> not focus it positively rather than negatively, on persuasion rather
>> than complaint, where you can be listened to rather than ignored?
>> There's a great opportunity now to try to get Toronto to follow
>> Vancouver's path... We can advance open source quite nicely without even
>> having to mention -- let alone badmouth -- Microsoft. And you don't need
>> to be a lawyer to do it.
>>
> 
> I am all for getting Toronto to follow suit, and would help with that
> too. It is all well and good to get Toronto to throw a rope down to Open
> Source and say "Hey guys, come on up, you're all welcome here", but then
> have Microsoft come along and spread grease on that rope.

Competition is good. I'm glad that Microsoft is a tough competitor.
Linux wouldn't be what it is today without Microsoft.

> I am curious about your definition of "badmouthing". I don't think it
> means what you think it means. No vulgarities have ever passed my
> keyboard. I contend that the restrictions on VM for MS basic operating
> systems constitutes an anti-competitive act because MS is, by far, the
> dominant player in the market. These are totally arbitrary restrictions
> designed solely to limit competition.

And what if "the restrictions on VM for MS basic operating systems" was
solely intended to have people who require more functionality to pay more?

> I am only seeking the opportunity
> to put this before the Competition Bureau. Stating this and my reasoning
> for it hardly constitutes "badmouthing".

No, it's just being naïve about how business works.
-- 
Regards,

Clifford Ilkay
Dinamis
1419-3266 Yonge St.
Toronto, ON
Canada  M4N 3P6

<http://dinamis.com>
+1 416-410-3326

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3286 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20090617/6e2c2722/attachment.bin>