Microsoft antitrust flap 'boosts Linux' in Far East

Microsoft's row with Korean regulators could boost Linux in Asia, the region's first listed Linux developer told vnunet.com today.

"It should definitely have a positive public relations impact for us," said Nobu Okada, chief financial officer at Turbolinux, a Japan-based Linux developer that carried out a successful IPO in September.

Microsoft said that it might stop selling Windows in Korea if regulators demand a rewrite of the operating system's code to remove certain features.

As regulators from the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) met to discuss a ruling in an antitrust case aimed at Microsoft, the president of Microsoft Korea, Yoo Jae-sung, said that if the KFTC urges Microsoft to remove bundled applications from Windows, it would be "difficult for us to do business in Korea".

The comments, reported in the Korea Times, appear to represent a strengthening of Microsoft's position, after a Korean official scolded the company earlier today.

The official told Reuters that Microsoft " should take responsibility for its customers and companies in relation to its business". On Sunday, a Microsoft Korea representative had been more conciliatory.

Mike Davis, senior research analyst with the Butler Group, downplayed the dispute's global significance. "Really, for Microsoft, Korea is small potatoes," he said.

Consumers would be likely to switch to pirated versions of Windows if they could not buy a bona fide copy, he predicted, although this would deny them access to official updates.

Davis believes that any positive impact for Linux is likely to result from the South Korea government insisting that its departments use alternatives to Windows.

With most Linux developers worldwide focusing on English and European languages, Turbolinux is generally recognised as one of the leading Asian providers of Linux, with a version adapted for Asian-language display and input, notably Japanese, Chinese and Korean.

The robust actions of Korean regulators are part of a global trend, argued Okada. "More than 30 countries are shifting toward open source software as a result of government leadership," he said.

If Microsoft really did delay or cease Windows deliveries in Korea, both Linux and Apple would benefit.

"For the desktop PC, the only alternatives are Mac OS and Linux," he said. Linux could see even greater gains in the server market, he added.

However, Okada warned that there is speculation that Korea's tough position could be a negotiating stance designed to win concessions from Microsoft. A decision in the case is expected during the next few days.

Microsoft's regional headquarters has not responded to vnunet.com's requests for comment on the Korean case this week.

While Microsoft can afford to play hardball with smaller nations like Korea, larger markets may not be so easy to push around.

"If China turned around and said 'no' to Microsoft, then they would have to take notice," said Davis.

I use Slax (Slackware-based livecd) with a few GPLed Red Hat RPMs I've converted to modules.

No. What I'm saying here is that Red Hat puts out the RHEL source under the GPL (and at no cost). If I were building a new distro, I could dl the source RPMs from Red Hat free and build a CD or DVD image to use the software. FermiLab and WhiteBox do this--with the explicit goal of being 100% RHEL compatible.

Yes. Mandrake did come from Red Hat. And no, that doesn't make you a ChiComm. Unfortunately, that's what GE's painting us as.

How companies are making $$--truth be told, I don't know. It is my understanding though that as long as GPLed copies exist freely to the public, it's c

My guess is that there's enough localizations and tweaking going on to sufficiently distinguish it from the paid versions of RHEL--if someone just dl'd Red Hat sources and built up a CD and then made millions on it, I really don't think Red Hat would put up with it too well.

Yes they have. But if profits tank, the company can sue--but IMO only for lost profits.

Which, I don't think will be very much because just look at how popular RHEL is, and how many people are using WhiteBox and CentOS.

Further, I'm not advocating they do, I'm just saying they technically can if their legal counsel decided to take action. With the rate of tech companies, I'm inclined to think they'd pull the GPL'ed source and then attempt to sue distro makers for lost profits. However, their attempt to recover those profits will under a functioning court system fail because Red Hat allowed the public to use their source under the GPL, which is a rather loose license.

But, I personally think there's two things going on: a.) there's some understanding that the distro makers aren't supposed to just simply build up a CD from the RH sources--they need to differentiate it, and b.) it's rather unlikely RH is posting the complete source in a ready-to-use format.

End result, they're likely to be unsuccessful in such an endeavor.

That said, the GPL is unique in that v.2 doesn't explicitly outlaw selling copies of your program so long as the program is freely available either as source or as a functional version. So, I could build my own distro as in post 45--dl the RH source, make some tweaks, make the source available on my website, and then sell the copies at school.

That's what I think is going on here. There's differentiation from the raw RH source and the RHEL production version, and the GPL criteria are being met. No big deal.

Read my post again, I said if they're allowed to get it at all, which I don't want to allow. Giving it to them for free is the worst possible case though. Is that why you're wondering if I want to sell it, because that is contrary to your belief it should be given to them for free?

You have hopelessly confused intellectual property rights, economic philosophy, national defense, foreign policy and software preference into an unpalatable hash. When confronted with the weakness of one strain in this rotten goulash, you just move to the next. The biggest problem, though, is the way you view Red China and our national approach to them. You are stuck in the 60s.
1) "Red" China is not the old Stalinist Soviet Union. They are not ideologues about Marxism. It could be argued that they are not Marxists or Maoists at all, except in their insistence that the gun of state power must remain in the "People's Congress." That is not socialistic, just totalitarian.
2) China has already been "infected" with the virus of freedom and individual rights. Economic freedom and individual rights are inseparably joined. State control grows brittle and eventually breaks apart in an environment where people have control of their destinies. We have 20 years of proof of this in the old Soviet empire.
3) Because of 1) and 2) above, your insistence that we view China as a "threat" in the model of the Russkies of the 50's thru 80's is just silly. We resist the threat that China poses (and they are a threat, just not on your model) by OPENING our doors, not closing them. To kill them, you use Bibles, radios, cd's, computers, Disneyland, cars, business models which they can pick up and adapt, etc., etc. Their prosperity is not a threat, as their growing prosperity KILLS the threat. That is why your ossified shrieks of "STOP THE REDS!!" is just silly. It is like the French looking to the Maginot Line........, wrong war.

A state like China morphs - like all nascent market states- from one which grabs everything they can to stuff it into their growing markets into one which recognizes that running a carriage and four thru property rights (intellectual or otherwise) will ultimately retard their own development. They don't do this because they have all been struck with "thou shalt not steal" but because they are FORCED BY THE MARKETS to accept market principles...."thou shalt not steal" being a lynchpin of the idea of free markets.
Another way of saying this is to say that Adam Smith sought to explain why morality compels free markets. He was a Presbyterian and deeply influenced by the Christian worldview of his day. The Chinese share no such heritage, but are rather coming to see that free markets (with their economic benefits) compels morality. Both China and the USA will be taught - however unwillingly - that economic freedom and morality are joined at the hip. You lose one, and you lose the other.

You point to a thieving, lying, "win at all costs" economy emerging from state control as "proof" of the Chinese threat. I say u r hopelessly ignorant of the real China and what is happening there. Read Nicholas Berg's recent piece in the Times re: the future "Chinese Constantine." There is an underlying philosophical shift occurring in China that makes the recent tsunammis look like water splashing in the bathtub.

Just like the flower children of the 60's need to get over Ellsberg and their romantic dreams, you need to get over your Communist paranoias. It is a different world.

Sorry for the long post.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.