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

[sTV <stv@fractalsoup.org>]

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,