Your mobile phone theory is demonstrably wrong because mobile phones became pretty affordable despite strong IP protection. It didn't require parasitic business models to bring prices down from the $20K level.
I don't say Red Hat shouldn't compete in the market. The question is on which terms they should compete, and to what extent politicians can consider Red Hat's business model deserving of support.
My point is that innovation has to be paid for in the end, and an entire economy can't follow the model of taking other people's developments and monetizing them because then nobody would create a product in the first place. I know and my article recognizes that Red Hat now does some R&D (not huge in absolute amounts but significant); still, there's no other company of that size who neither created nor acquired the core of its product. It would be illusionary to think that politicians are going to change the intellectual property rights regime in order to accomodate monetizers instead of original innovators.