The following was contributed by Linux Today reader John McLay.
Perhaps someone from Redhat or Linux International should
contact Congress, or the Federal Trade Commission, to investigate
the issue of Microsoft falsifying test results for the purposes of
discrediting Linux and Redhat. If the test were rigged and then
Microsoft issued a press release on the Internet to promote this
misinformation, then they were engaging in advertising data that
they new to be false. False advertising is a crime and they should
be charged with the crime to stop them from doing it again.
It would be unfortunate if Redhat and Linux International felt
that pushing for an investigation would be bad advertisement for
Linux. The purpose of the investigation is not to cry foul, but to
establish the truth and make sure justice occurs. If Microsoft
deliberately set out to defame Linux and Redhat and if they did so
using fraudulent data, then it is the duty of the injured party to
contact the FTC. Not doing so will continue to harm the consumers
who have been given false information. Lacking contrary information
the consumer will accept the MS results at face value. If a crime
has been committed then Microsoft should be brought up on criminal
fraud charges.
There is nothing to be lost by asking the FTC to be
investigating this matter. Just having the FTC initiation an
investigation will help counteract the false data that MS reported,
even if it doesn’t eventually end in any charges.
The request to the FTC should include language asking for
immediate action because the continued propagation of this false
data is doing immediate and irreversible harm to Linux. This damage
is being magnified by the comparative size of the parties involved.
The small size of Redhat prevents them from effectively competing
with MS in the press. If MS can create the impression that the data
is correct then the harm could be fatal to Redhat and other Linux
companies. This is not like MS falsifying data against Sun or
Novell. Those companies are big, financially secure, well
established. They can counter the MS claims with studies and
advertising of their own. In the case of the Linux benchmark, MS is
deliberately setting out to destroy small companies by unfair
means. Asking for immediate relief, because the damage is immediate
and permanent, could get the FTC to take action in weeks rather
than in years.
In the eternally optimistic department their is a slim chance
that this could have another positive benefit. It is abhorrent, not
to mention against regulations, that the government continues to
buy proprietary software for the desktop when standards based
software is available. A swift ruling by the FTC could possibly
include a bar on the the government purchase of MS products for a
number of years as punishment. Killing future sales of any MS
operating system to any Federal agency would effectively end their
monopoly.
It is the responsibility of the FTC to conduct investigations
such as the one proposed. Here is a quote from http://www.ftc.gov/ that sums up the
FTC’s policy on investigating advertising.
The Commission evaluates comparative advertising in the
same manner as it evaluates all other advertising techniques. The
ultimate question is whether or not the advertising has a tendency
or capacity to be false or deceptive. This is a factual issue to be
determined on a case-by-case basis.
If MS uses false test results in advertising they may be in
violation. And just because the FTC doesn’t take up the matter for
Sun or Novell doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t do so for Linux.
Another avenue would be to seek a court injunction against MS
using any Mindcraft test results in advertisements until an
investigation had been completed. The evidence supplied by the
Linux community should be sufficient to get an injunction since
possible criminal intent is apparent.
A second part of the strategy would be to ask the FTC to have
NIST, http://www.nist.gov/,
conduct the benchmark of the two systems. NIST is often called upon
when a neutral third party is required for testing. Congress and
government agencies can call on NIST to conduct a test of
commercial technology to come up with definitive results.
NIST has the technical expertise and the computing resources to
conduct the test. For example, one group is investigating NT
clustering:
http://www.nist.gov/itl/div895/research/PC_Clusters/sld001.htm
and another group is doing Linux based clustering:
http://www-i.nist.gov/itl/div895/895.02/rapid/index.html
The Mindcraft study did not reflect a very real-world situation.
It was designed to produce marketing data. The FTC could ask NIST
to design and conduct an appropriate test that would reflect a
realistic business environment. The Linux community might like to
contribute some ideas on what NIST should include in a realistic
test.
The Linux community is typically adverse to involving the
government. Taking the moral high ground against a company that
uses every dirty trick in the book is not helping the consumers.
Microsoft hides behind laws when it is to their advantage. They
also push to have laws passed to their advantage, such as the new
rules governing shrink-wrap licensing in the Uniform Code of
Commerce. Fighting MS in the legal system is a moral obligation
because it helps defend consumers against fraud.