Linux distributors may need to unite

What is becoming very clear is that Microsoft Corporation has adopted a policy of degrading, defaming or degradation Linux in as many of its third party agreements as it can muster.

For years Linux has been a topic of discussion with OEMs such as DELL, HP and others. And it should not be. When Microsoft talks with DELL, Linux should not be a topic of discussion anymore than IBM or Intel should be. Yet it is known that Microsoft makes Linux a topic of discussion with these OEMs. And lately Microsoft has also made Linux a topic of discussion with Samsung and Fiji as well. And there is no telling how many other deals and contacts Microsoft has made where Linux is the subject.

It is fair to suggest that Linux should never be the topic in any discussion with Microsoft unless Microsoft is providing Linux products. And, of course, the Novell deal comes to mind there. So if Microsoft wants to help provide GPL products, then fine. But otherwise it should not be discussing Linux nor putting terms into contracts which are merely intended to degrade, discredit or defame a competitors product.

In a previous article I suggested that IBM would not permit Microsoft to use its contracts to suggest or cover suggested patent violations by IBM. And I am convinced they would not.

But, who is Linux?

A number of companies distribute Linux based products but no one company has the burden of maintaining its good name. And perhaps that should change.

Red Hat, Xandros, Mandrivia and even Novell need to work together to protect Linux products from unfair and disparaging conduct. Those activities include releases of possible patent violations in Linux when Linux is not being provided by the contract. Those activities also include any mention of Linux when Linux is not being provided by Microsoft. If Microsoft wants to distribute Linux to DELL, then fine. Otherwise, any mention of Linux in a DELL-Microsoft contract must be considered to be intended to harm Linux in one way or another and is and should be illegal.

However, unless all Linux distributors somehow join together and act in such a fashion to preclude this kind of activity, Microsoft will continue its field day with illegal activities.

What purpose does releasing Samsung of Linux patent violations have if not to defame Linux publicly by its exposure to the public? Does not Microsoft and Samsung know how to keep contact terms secret? Of course they do. So making them public is just another means sought by Microsoft for product degradation. And Red Hat, Xandros, Mandrivia, Novell and others are harmed by the process adopted by Samsung and Microsoft. They both need to be sued for the illegal conduct. Microsoft for imposing the term on Samsung and Samsung for willingly participating in the public exposure of the degradation. If all Samsung wanted was its own protection, it could have secured a private secret promise. But, Microsoft and Samsung wanted it public. And they wanted it public in order to cause the harm. It has no other purpose.

Simply put, if Red Hat does not sue Samsung (Fuji and others), Microsoft Corporation and their goons will continue to degrade the Linux platform via illegal means. It is as simple as that. And if Red Hat does not want to defend Linux with its own dime then it will have to join with the other distributors accordingly.

This is absolutely essential.

If Linux distributors can not join together in order to protect their market and indeed their products from illegal Microsoft activity, it will only escalate. More and more contacts will include promises to “excuse Linus patent violations”. And those contract terms will be publicized. (They have little purpose if kept secret.)

This issue can not ignored. Microsoft will continue to find ways to defame and degrade Linux unless it is ordered to cease doing so by a court of law. Bet your last dollar on that. Microsoft will be spending its last dollar in doing so. And they have a few dollars to go.

It should be no surprise that Microsoft pays Novell almost 10 times what Novell paid in their bogus industry agreement. And you can bet that the jerks at Microsoft thought they were getting their monies worth. And it was not Novell technologies or products.

Novell is in a squeeze play here. But, they got greedy and tried to steal third. If Novell does not shape up and realize the mistake they have made it will mean the demise of their company. Monopolists can engage in all manner of immoral or illegal conduct and still earn money to buy their way out. Novell has competition in the Linux marketplace. And customers can leave Novell in a heartbeat if they have reason to do so. (Just remember the comments coming from SUN in that regard.)

And those Novell customers that thought they would just take those coupons from Microsoft and advance accordingly may revisit their thinking. They do not benefit from a split Linux marketplace. They do not benefit from a Linux marketplace that provides for a change in a distributor if they are tied to only one of them (for whatever reason). They can benefit greatly from a strong and viable Linux marketplace. Doing what Microsoft wants will never accomplish that. At least not if Microsoft can avoid it.

If Microsoft is for it, you can be sure that they think it harms a competitor. And that means the customer gets screwed in the process that is tough titty. In fact any act directed at a competitor by its very nature also harms customers. And that is the result because customers benefit from competition. It can be price competition. It can be feature competition. It can be competition as a result of alternative services and support. But most importantly customers benefit when competition is truly open and fair. And that is precisely what Microsoft Corporation's illegal acts are directly at.

If Linux distributors can not or do not stand up for their legal rights, they will not succeed. Illegal activity can beat them every time. And that activity can range from deals with OEMs to deals with Novell to deals with Samsung and Fiji. All of which are intended to harm Linux.

I have always felt that somehow SCO was a side show. A show intended by Microsoft to distract away from what they do directly. It would now appear that is correct. Or, maybe it is Plan A crapping out so Plan B takes over. But, Microsoft has a lot of dirty and illegal tricks to work on. And if anything is certain from the antitrust trials it is that Microsoft will not comply with the law unless it is ordered to do so by a court of law. Organized crime thinks the same way.

Update: A contrary view here.

The contrary view does have merit. However, I still think all of the Linux distributors may need to unite (not necessarily on the technical level) in order to address issues in common for the platform. FUD from Microsoft might be one issue that is independent of any particular distribution. But, there may be other issues as well.