The Software Freedom Law Center has written a rather odd letter regarding a purported “patent tax” in Microsoft Windows. Estimating that Microsoft has paid out and expended $4.3 billion in patent related losses, with roughly a cycle of 200 million new Windows installations, the SFLC contends Windows users pay an average of $21.50 per Windows license for Microsoft to cover its patent expenses.

Very clever, but how meaningful is this? Lets turn the tables to see.

Its no secret that Linux has some paid developers, but volunteer programmers still abound, and are even courted between distributions. Yet, FOSS firms like Red Hat and the FOSS sect of IBM spend substantially more on marketing than R&D or product development. So, the next time their customers need to call for Linux support, should that service fee be considered a “marketing tax” that could have been better spent scaling Linux, making it more user friendly and independent of support services?

The services that Linux distributions charge to their enterprise customers are hiked up by marketing dollars the movement spends trying to convince society and volunteer developers it’s a revolution, but is this what convinces enterprises to adopt Linux? Linux distributions should cover their marketing budget with those who buy into the "revolutionary" spiel. For the rest of its customers, such as for profit enterprises, after deducting marketing costs, Linux and accompanying services may well be free:)

There is a more serious aspect of the SFLC’s letter.

The FOSS movement has long glamorized what its good at, and vilified what its not. Where does all of this get FOSS? Its market share and limited penetration in desktop and mass-consumer markets is its own fault. How are Microsoft and software patents stopping FOSS from innovating in these areas? I ask this as a concrete rather than a theoretical question? FOSS only wants to hear the latter, or better yet, ideological questions. FOSS disagreement with Microsoft and software patents is primarily ideological, with long-drawn theoretical scenarios with little grounding in what actually happens in the market. But in the FOSS movement's mind, its a competitive fight. The weak often glamorize their battles.

The FOSS movement knows it cannot win a purely ideological fight against Microsoft or the patent system; its revolutionary rhetoric would appear to the mass consumer market as lacking sense of proportion. Thus, it must clothe its morals in economic, policy, and now, tax, language. Such utilitarian justifications, however, soon collapse on FOSS' foundational natural rights arguments.

The FSF wants to derail Microsoft (which is fine if done in the market place) and software patents (which I care more about) on which innovation in the technology industries reside. What does FOSS offer in exchange? Linux on the desktop, a productivity suite? Lets roll. But can FOSS live up to goals for which it would be under the pressure of expectation, when it decides its own fate rather than blaming Microsoft and the patent system? If left to be held accountable for its own fate, FOSS would have nobody to blame but itself, and we may hear FOSS clamour less than we do today.

posted by Noel Le @ 8:49 PM | Free Culture Movement

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)