david <da...@kenpro.com.au> writes:
> Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> Heracles <herac...@iprimus.com.au> writes:
>>
>>> I spent a great deal of time over the last few years trying to get parts
>>> of the DET to look at free software with little effect. I found three
>>> major hurdles.
>>> 1. The unfounded belief that anything free must be second rate
>>> 2. The complete reliance on their Microsoft trained advisers
>>> 3. The argument that the students will only ever encounter MS based
>>> software in the workplace (also based on their advisers).
>>>
>>> I know that these are bogus arguments, but the powers that be are
>>> convinced that they are true.
>>
>> You have a more liberal department than many of the Victorian
>> equivalents, then. Down here cause number one, of one, is that the
>> contractual agreement that gets them Microsoft software at reasonable
>> price also explicitly excludes them using any alternative OS.
>
> What a pity there isn't anyone around with deep pockets to run a
> restraint-of-trade court case.. or similar.
There isn't any restraint of trade, simply a standard commercial
contract that grants a specialized license to the department in return
for various conditions of use.
The department is in no way obligated to make such a contract in the
first place, or to renew it when it expires, and they are welcome to do
anything they please as long as they comply with the contractual terms.
They could, for example, walk away from the contract right now[1],
remove all Microsoft software from their systems (or obtain a new
agreement), and be happy.
Likewise, they could contract another company, perhaps fruit or clothing
based, to provide all the software and hardware after the current
contract expires, if they so desired.
Trade is in no way restrained by this, although you would be right to
wonder what sort of discount was applied to obtain such a restrictive
contract in the first place.[2]
The place you /might/ raise an objection is when the government renew
the contract without a formal tendering process, but I don't think you
would get anywhere with a claim of restraint of trade.
> I know the law is an ass... but instinctively it seems that there
> should be enough of a public interest case there.
Instinct is an extremely poor guide to the workings of law, I fear.
Regards,
Daniel
Footnotes:
[1] Subject to whatever early termination penalty was stipulated in the
contract, of course.
[2] The government here regularly flirt with Linux on the desktop or
server, often coincidental to contract renewal negotiations in
their near future. Coincedintally.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
