This is an interesting one indeed. Is a contract open-ended, or do you have to retender for the contract and allow for other bids, under law, for said contract? I think that one's easy enough to work out. Ian Lynch made some very good points on this, and I agree. On that note, it would appear that MS have taken advantage of the Govts. apparent distraction at this time by providing them a no-brainer: newer (cheeper?) contracts/licensing for the resumption of their license agreements under the guise of their new SA. Nice. Microsoft are not on my terrorist list, so I have no particular *gripe* with them, unless you count their antitrust behaviour and out-and-out "kill the opposition fast" business tactics as fair game? In this example (NHS contract) I think again they have shown their true business tactics, and in this respect should be opened up for all to see. Indeed, this may be in contravention of Eu law, and given the EUs interest in MS of late, should be very much in their interest to find out and investigate. If SUN had been doing this, then I think we all would be saying the same thing. Fact is, MS are a monopoloy and so need to be very careful how they conduct business; it would seem that they just don't care, because too many people believe that their practises are quite *legal* and therefore say nothing. This is no way for the software industry to continue, especially in the economic climate in which we all breathe. No. Simply, MS need to be brought to stand for this one, and the Govt need to be brought there too!! Paul
On that note, it would appear that MS have taken advantage of the Govts. apparent distraction at this time by providing them a no-brainer: newer (cheeper?) contracts/licensing for the resumption of their license
Maybe cheaper, could well be more expensive. e.g. if it were only to cover running the latest version of their software. "Downgrading" being a breach. Thus you end up with huge costs of upgrading hardware, reinstalling software, updating inventories, recertifying applications, etc. This kind of cost (especially where remote managment capabilities are lacking) can easily dwarf the face value of licence certificates.
agreements under the guise of their new SA. Nice. Microsoft are not on my terrorist list, so I have no particular *gripe* with them, unless
Which IMHO makes them far more dangerous, at least law enforcement actually keeps some kind of watch on those who pervert religious texts.
you count their antitrust behaviour and out-and-out "kill the opposition fast" business tactics as fair game? In this example (NHS contract) I
Don't forget that they don't treat their customers that well either, e.g. having the BSA as hired thugs.
think again they have shown their true business tactics, and in this respect should be opened up for all to see. Indeed, this may be in contravention of Eu law, and given the EUs interest in MS of late, should be very much in their interest to find out and investigate.
If SUN had been doing this, then I think we all would be saying the same thing. Fact is, MS are a monopoloy and so need to be very careful how they conduct business; it would seem that they just don't care, because
Except they aren't careful, they act like an organisation which is above the law. Which in itself puts them in the company of gangsters and terrorists.
too many people believe that their practises are quite *legal* and therefore say nothing. This is no way for the software industry to
Not only that they defend these crooks with phrases like "business is business" or claims that the whole trial was the results of sour grapes from competitors who simply wern't up to it or even the classic about Microsoft being "too sucessful".
continue, especially in the economic climate in which we all breathe. No. Simply, MS need to be brought to stand for this one, and the Govt need to be brought there too!!
participants (2)
-
Mark Evans
-
Paul Munro