[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [school-discuss] MS Schools Agreement anti-competitive UK
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
I don't agree that School Agreement, or a Microsoft Select program are
any more anti-competitive than the site licenses offered by most large
software companies. At worst, they are confusing and designed to cheat
the customer - they are an 'insurance policy' meant to ease the paranoid
tension created by anti-piracy coalitions - but they are not designed,
necessarily, to drive other software out of the customer's org.
I detest Microsoft and the way they treat their clients and customers,
and am the first to rise to attack their way of doing business, usually
- but there is no reasonable way you can call a site-license, or a
volume license program, anti-competitive.
If by some fluke of misjustice it is ever ruled that site licenses are a
tool of sabotage, a very large number of fine companies are going to be
in trouble.
If anyone ever tells you that they decided not to use a product because
they already had a site license for something that works for them - the
key there is that it 'works for them'. It isn't 'had a site license'.
Our school district made the choice NOT to use School Agreement, or any
of the volume license agreements with Microsoft for many, many reasons -
the primary one being the suspicion that is was going to require us to
pay two to three times as much for software we didn't need or
particularly want (or could support!).
At no time was it ever suggested that if we had signed a School
Agreement or Select, etc - would we abandon all other software or cease
to buy or install any further software.
Much like the Justice Department vs. Microsoft, the only thing
litigation suggesting that site licenses are shady business practices
will do, is obscure the real issues concerning Microsoft's way of doing
business and creating software.
ian (ian.lynch2@ntlworld.com) wrote:
>
>In December I filed a complaint to the UK Office of Fair Trading with
>regard to Microsoft Schools Agreement being anti-competitive because it
>requires the payment of licences to MS for machines that do not run any
>of their software. I think most people would agree that an effect of
>this, intentional or not, is to block competition by ensuring revenue
>for MS from rival installations. There was an article in the Register
>and the Times on this and I am talking to Computer Weekly about it
>tomorrow. The OFT have now decided there are reasonable grounds for a
>full investigation so collecting evidence is important.
>
>This is an important issue for free software in general and in fact any
>free software distribution that wants to get onto the desktop in
>schools. If MS succeed in a strategy of getting most schools onto the
>MSSA it will virtually kill any chance of getting free software at the
>desktop in schools because why use even free software if all your
>machines are block licensed to MS anyway? The OFT, has specific
>bureaucratic requirements in investigating these issues and it could
>take up to 2 years to come to a judgement and even then it might not be
>the one we would like. So this is only a beginning but an important one
>if free software is to thrive in schools.
>
>I realise this is an international list so there are two distinct issues
>with which you might be able to help.
>
>1. Obviously the UK Office of Fair Trading has carried out initial
>enquiries before initiating a formal investigation. This could provide
>you with sufficient evidence to go to your own country's, state's etc
>fair trading legislature to investigate in your own neck of the woods.
>The more global this action the more likely that MS will back down and
>make Schools agreement only apply to machines running MS products.
>
>2. If you are in the UK, and you have any evidence that MSSA is blocking
>OO.org, Linux or any other adoption of non-MS products in your school or
>any other that you know,particularly if you work for a commercial
>software selling company the principal case officer dealing with this is
>
>Edward.Anderson@oft.gsi.gov.uk. If you need more information drop me a
>line.
>
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-5-664844,00.html
>
>(Times link)
>
>BTW, this could also have implications for other corporate agreements
>outside the schools arena if the basis for calculating annual licensing
>costs is the same. Given MS track record on anti-trust cases, this could
>be significantly bad for them if it goes to court because it will
>reinforce in everyone's mind that they are not a trustworthy
>organisation.
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>