What about the more extreme case of the council using funds to extend an MS Enterprise agreement to schools? Is this for the OFT to examine or the NAO? I have reason to believe the coucil in question are directly negotiating with MS rather than going to tender for equivalent solutions. -----Original Message----- From: ian To: SuSE mailing list for UK schools Sent: 5/5/03 11:06 AM Subject: [suse-linux-uk-schools] OFT and MSSA In December I filed a complaint to the OFT with regard to MSSA 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 Suse and in fact any Linux 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 Linux at the desktop in schools. 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 Linux is to thrive in schools. If you have any evidence that MSSA is blocking Linux adoption in your school or any other that you know, particularly if you work for a commercial Linux company (Roger?) the principal case officer dealing with this is Edward.Anderson@oft.gsi.gov.uk. If you need more information drop me a line. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-5-664844,00.html (Times link) Thanks, -- ian <ian.lynch2@ntlworld.com> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-linux-uk-schools-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands, e-mail: suse-linux-uk-schools-help@suse.com
On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 12:02:05PM +0100, Chris Puttick wrote:
What about the more extreme case of the council using funds to extend an MS Enterprise agreement to schools? Is this for the OFT to examine or the NAO? I have reason to believe the coucil in question are directly negotiating with MS rather than going to tender for equivalent solutions.
Have you considered the local government ombudsman? Though they might only be prepared to accept a complaint from a person (or business) which has lost money due to maladministration. Also the complainant must have first asked the council chief executive to deal with the matter. -- Mark Evans St. Peter's CofE High School Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109 Fax: +44 1392 204763
Local Authorities are under a legal obligation to provide "best value", and I would certainly not consider this to be best value. The best way forward, in my view, would be to get a concerned parent (or Governor if possible) to make a formal complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman. Regards, Grahame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Grahame Leon-Smith Director Tele-School Online Tel 01932-874067 Fax 01932-874068 mailto:grahame.leon-smith@tele-school.org HAVE A LOOK AT OUR WEBSITE AT < http://www.tele-school.org> TELE-SCHOOL ONLINE FREE RESOURCES FOR EDUCATION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----Original Message----- From: Mark Evans [mailto:mpe@st-peters-high.devon.sch.uk] Sent: 05 May 2003 19:09 To: Chris Puttick Cc: 'ian '; 'SuSE mailing list for UK schools ' Subject: Re: [suse-linux-uk-schools] OFT and MSSA On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 12:02:05PM +0100, Chris Puttick wrote:
What about the more extreme case of the council using funds to extend an MS Enterprise agreement to schools? Is this for the OFT to examine or the NAO? I have reason to believe the coucil in question are directly negotiating with MS rather than going to tender for equivalent solutions.
Have you considered the local government ombudsman? Though they might only be prepared to accept a complaint from a person (or business) which has lost money due to maladministration. Also the complainant must have first asked the council chief executive to deal with the matter. -- Mark Evans St. Peter's CofE High School Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109 Fax: +44 1392 204763 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-linux-uk-schools-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands, e-mail: suse-linux-uk-schools-help@suse.com --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.445 / Virus Database: 250 - Release Date: 21/01/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.445 / Virus Database: 250 - Release Date: 21/01/2003
On Mon, 2003-05-05 at 12:02, Chris Puttick wrote:
What about the more extreme case of the council using funds to extend an MS Enterprise agreement to schools? Is this for the OFT to examine or the NAO? I have reason to believe the coucil in question are directly negotiating with MS rather than going to tender for equivalent solutions.
Sorry if I sent this before. I started a reply and had a visitor thought I sent it but can't find a reference to it! This particular investigation is as follows. <quote> The Act prohibits agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings, and concerted practices which prevent, restrict or distort competition, or are intended to do so, and which may affect trade within the United Kingdom or a part of the United Kingdom (the Chapter I prohibition). The Act also prohibits the abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position in a market where this may affect trade within the United Kingdom or a part of the United Kingdom (the Chapter II prohibition). Under section 25 of the Act, the OFT may conduct an investigation if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the Chapter I prohibition or the Chapter II prohibition have been infringed. *Subject matter and purpose of the investigation* The OFT has reasonable grounds for suspecting that Microsoft has abused a dominant position through the introduction of its School Agreement licensing option, in particular, through the requirement for schools licensed under the School Agreement to licence Microsoft software for all their eligible computers, regardless of whether schools then choose to install the licensed Microsoft software on all those computers included within the licensing terms. <end quote> I think that you would have to file complaints about things like the extension of other enterprise agreements to schools on an individual basis. No doubt that if the OFT rule that schools agreement as it stands is illegal, other similar license agreements will be too. The key is in the way the license fees are calculated. If they are specifically related to identifiable PCs that run no MS Software I think its pretty cut and dried. If its a blanket license such as £70m for all NHS computers irrespective of how many its more difficult because site licensing for software is quite a well-established practice. There might be a case that since MS is so dominant, site licensing in general is anti-competitive but that one would be a lot harder to win. My own view is that at this point focus on an issue that we are very likely to win is best. Keep things simple and clear and avoid muddying the waters at this stage. Once this battle is won the next step can be taken because there will be implications for a lot of the other licensing practices. Regards, -- ian <ian.lynch2@ntlworld.com>
participants (4)
-
Chris Puttick -
Grahame Leon-Smith＠FreeComputers -
ian -
Mark Evans