Re: [school-discuss] MS Schools Agreement anti-competitive UK

[Paul Tietjens <ptietjens@moriarty.k12.nm.us>]

If you don't want to license all of your machines, there are many options 
available.  They aren't forcing you into the agreement, so...  I fail to see 
how they 'force' you to license all machines.

On Tuesday 06 May 2003 12:29 pm, sTV wrote:
> Paul I think you have misunderstood the case here.
> "The condition of the deal requires schools to license Microsoft
> software for all their PCs, even if they install it only on some
> of them."
> Now as far as I am concerned that is unfair and enforces SMTs and ICT
> HODs who don't know otherwise to stay with Microsoft.
>
> Ian is right and I support his case. Microsoft are wrong.
> If they want schools to use their software then they should give it to
> them, "Free as in Beer".
>
> The fact that Microsoft has "many happy customers" is a reflection of
> the grip they have in schools.
> The customers do not know how happy they could be with Open Source
> Software!
>
> Why should I pay a fee for a machine to use Windoze if I only put Linux
> on it?
>
> Kind regards,
> Steve Leonard-Clarke
> Head of ICT Curriculum,
> St Dunstan's Community School,
> Glastonbury, BA6 9BY
> UK
>
> "Put Linux in Schools" http://linuxinschools.org
>
>
>
> Paul Tietjens wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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,