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

[ian <ian.lynch2@ntlworld.com>]

Didn't see Paul's post for some reason - only just subscribed to the
list and I'm not sure if its coming here but to explain from Steve's
point.

"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."

The issue is one of dominance. It could be argued that since there is a
choice of whether to take up MS agreement or not, the fact there is an
option not to means those who do it know what they are getting into. In
fact this is a bit of an irrelevance since its not the customer but
other competing suppliers that the competition law is concerned with.
(Ok this in the long run should benefit the consumer) If I as a supplier
approach a school and offer them something at a very competitive price,
but they turn it down because if they accept they not only have to pay
me but also Microsoft when none of their products are involved, its
blatantly anti-competitive and blocking my products from the market
through the misuse of a monopoly. Every journalist I have explained the
situation to is absolutely incredulous that its even been allowed at
all! Comments such as outrageous etc so my feeling is that if this does
go to court Microsoft will lose because to a fair minded person it is
blocking out competition. The solution is simple. MS just have to reword
MS Schools agreement to only include machines running Windows as
eligible machines. That to me seems perfectly reasonable and it won't
affect schools who are entirely committed to MS. It will reduce the cost
to schools that use some MS and some Linux (or other alternative) but
surely that is as it should be. IF MS products are so wonderful they
have nothing to worry about because no-one will install anything except
Windows based machines. Alternatively they could have a single site
license fee based on say the number of pupils although I think site
licensing in general by a company with such market dominance is arguably
dubious from a competition point of view. 

In any case the OFT would not take on a formal investigation after
several months consideration if they thought that it was likely to have
no significant outcome. After all why waste taxpayers money to maintain
the status quo?

-- 
ian <ian.lynch2@ntlworld.com>