On radio 4 last night I caught a brief announcement that the Government are doing a block deal with MS of licenses for the NHS for 70m (per year?). If this is the case and they start doing this in the rest of the public sector, it will kill all competition because to the users in the service the software is then effectively free. Under EU law, deals bigger than 150k gbp have to be tendered properly and advertised in the EU journal. If this did not occur, the Government are breaking the law. If the argument is that there is only one reasonable source of supply, they are then dealing with an unregulated monopoly. If you believe as I do that this is anti-competitive practice and effectively forms a cartel between the Government and Microsoft, contact the office of fair trading. The E-mail address is enquiries.competitionact@oft.gov.uk Incidentally the Governement probably aren't aware that they are paying Microsoft more for their annual license for the NHS than Sun paid for the whole of Star Corp. -- IanL
Ian
enquiries.competitionact@oft.gov.uk
Wrote a long e-mail to this address but I don't expect any answers. I might also say in passing that any letter to my Member of Parliament about Linux and the cost of software to schools in the local area doesn't seem to be taken all that seriously. I've seen several invoices to local schools for MS licence for £20 000 and more. This is in northern England where we don't have money for schools. Or ... so we are told :) Thanks -- Richard
Is it just me, or is this turning into an anti MS list? If the NHS was spending this cash to implement Solaris with Oracle db's then would you kick up such a fuss? I honestly think not.... Please correct me if I'm wrong. Regards, Robb Bloomfield PS. Apologies to those that read this twice, i cocked up the to: field :)
Is it just me, or is this turning into an anti MS list? If the NHS was spending this cash to implement Solaris with Oracle db's then would you kick up such a fuss? I honestly think not....
The difference is that Sun is not a monopoly, nor have they been found guilty (more than once) of breaking the law. The simple fact is that Microsoft is a quite nasty organisation, who at some time in the past appear to have become something more akin to gangsters and terrorists than an honest business. You also appear to be missing the point that tendering rules may well have been ignored or a tender may have been put together in such a way as to exclude all bar one supplier. -- Mark Evans St. Peter's CofE High School Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109 Fax: +44 1392 204763
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Robb Bloomfield wrote:
Is it just me, or is this turning into an anti MS list? If the NHS was spending this cash to implement Solaris with Oracle db's then would you kick up such a fuss? I honestly think not.... Please correct me if I'm wrong.
If they had chosen Solaris / Oracle then you could reasonably assume that they had actually made a choice: looked at alternatives, compared cost / benefits etc. Because of Microsoft's dominant position, when somebody chooses Microsoft then you can reasonably assume that they may *not* have looked at any alternatives etc. This may sound harsh but it's just playing the odds; MS is in some ways the "default" option and so there is a reasonable probability that no choice was actually made. This is what worries me. If the NHS come back and say that yes, they did look at a variety of options and that MS was chosen as the best available option then there's no problem. My concern is that this may not be the case and so I have queried the OFT for more information. Michael Brown http://www.fensystems.co.uk/ -- Fen Systems: Linux made easy for schools
Hi Robb, To some extent you are correct - we are to a lesser or greater extent anti-MS. However, in many cases as well as in general there is a very good reason for this. Simply look at back issues of most trade or general publications to collect a vast array of examples where MS have - shall we say - not been nice. However, the main point of this thread isn't that MS are naughty - but the British government also appears to be a little bit dodgy. There are hard and fast rules about tendering, and not only do they have appeared to completely ignore these, but they seem to be using the current situation to overshadow the news so as to reduce the outcry. That is the main point of this issue. And yes, I would complain if they'd done the same with Sun in place of MS, although probably not to the same extent. Just think how many hospitals, schools, day centre's, nurseries, old folk's homes....... could have been kitted out if they'd used OS (not just Linux per say), along with the smaller kit that would have been needed. That's even allowing for funding for cross-training existing MS *experts*. I don't count people who've never used a PC as I think that it's as easy to learn Linux as a first OS as it is to learn Windows. Gary On Friday 12 October 2001 4:14 pm, Robb Bloomfield wrote:
Is it just me, or is this turning into an anti MS list? If the NHS was spending this cash to implement Solaris with Oracle db's then would you kick up such a fuss? I honestly think not....
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Regards,
Robb Bloomfield
PS. Apologies to those that read this twice, i cocked up the to: field :)
-- Gary Stainburn This email does not contain private or confidential material as it may be snooped on by interested government parties for unknown and undisclosed purposes - Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000
On radio 4 last night I caught a brief announcement that the Government are doing a block deal with MS of licenses for the NHS for 70m (per year?). If this is the case and they start doing this in the rest of the public sector, it will kill all competition because to the users in the service the software is then effectively free. Under EU law, deals bigger than 150k gbp have to be
Will this also magically make Windows suitable for academic networks? Which is something it simply dosn't do very well, because of basic design assumptions. At a guess the NHS far more follows the plan of each user having exclusive use of a specific machine.
tendered properly and advertised in the EU journal. If this did not occur,
Is there anything in the rules to indicate that such contracts should favour companies actually in the EU?
the Government are breaking the law. If the argument is that there is only one reasonable source of supply, they are then dealing with an unregulated monopoly. If you believe as I do that this is anti-competitive practice and
It it worst that they would be dealing with an "unregulated monopoly" or a "criminal organisation"?
effectively forms a cartel between the Government and Microsoft, contact the office of fair trading. The E-mail address is enquiries.competitionact@oft.gov.uk
-- Mark Evans St. Peter's CofE High School Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109 Fax: +44 1392 204763
Dear All
dealing with an unregulated monopoly. If you believe as I do that this is anti-competitive practice and effectively forms a cartel between the Government and Microsoft, contact the office of fair trading. The E-mail address is enquiries.competitionact@oft.gov.uk
Got a letter back from the Office o f Fair Trading. From.. brian.woo@oft.gsi.gov.uk it says .... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Mr Ibbotson Thank you for your e-mail of 12 October. Your letter is being dealt with and you should receive a reply soon. If you should write to us on this subject, please quote ref: xxxx xxx xxx Brian Woo ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm not supposing that anything will actually happen. They'll probably just ignore it. Thanks -- Richard
participants (6)
-
Gary Stainburn -
Ian Lynch -
Mark Evans -
Michael Brown -
Richard Ibbotson -
Robb Bloomfield