05.26.09
New Zealand’s Freedom Fighters Defeat Microsoft’s Latest ‘Colonisations Directive’
Comment: Did politicians and Microsoft just get scared of public uproar, or are Microsoft’s products really so bad that a renewed deal is outright rejected?
Microsoft has already tried to shove its DRM down the throats of taxpayers in New Zealand. The fight against the colossal OOXML corruption (trying to shove it down ISO’s throat) was also very heated down south in New Zealand [1, 2, 3, 4]. Thus, there is absolutely no reason to respect the company from Redmond over there, even if only for the things it did locally.
Attempts have been made by Microsoft to control just about any country around the globe, with recent examples that include Spain and Australia. We gave new examples from both this morning [1, 2].
Microsoft has been up to similar tricks in New Zealand, but this is no more, according to the new press release which we append at the bottom, in full.
The State Services Commission today announced the government has concluded negotiations with Microsoft on a pan-government agreement for the next three years.
It became apparent during discussions that a formal agreement with Microsoft is no longer appropriate.
This smells like the MOUs that we see in the UK, for example [1, 2, 3, 4]. As we wrote a couple of days ago, there is now precedence supporting legal action too. No country should be up for sale to a foreign corporation whose status includes crime and monopoly abuse in several continents (with convictions).
Here is an interesting new explanation of how Microsoft achieves (and maintains) monopoly.
It’s that their entire product line rests upon state enforcement of legal monopolies of duplication called “copyrights” (that’s what a copyright is: a monopoly on the duplication of an intangible such as software). And the most outrageous thing is that they outsource their costs of enforcement to you, the taxpayer.
Let’s go with an example here. Imagine you want to enter the potato business. You buy one potato, and you plant it. You invest time and energy of your own into multiplying said potato and making a huge-ass farm, and when time comes for harvest, you can pick them up and sell them in direct competition with the guy who sold you the first potato.
Now imagine you wanted to sell Windows instead of potatoes: you buy a copy of Windows, duplicate it N times (certainly a cheaper investment, but an investment in time and money nonetheless), and start selling it. Exactly like in the potato example above. What happens here is that armed dudes show up at your doorstep and yank you into a cell, and your assets are taken away from you, whether they were involved in the commission of this act, or not.
This ought to explain why we so regularly bring up issues that revolve around copyrights, DRM, and stifling of sharing of data over the Internet (censorship of sorts). These are all essential or at least relevant for suppression and repression of a free society. Microsoft is a major part of this problem. █
______
Outcome of G2009 Microsoft negotiations
The New Zealand Open Source Society — 26 May 2009 The State Services Commission today announced the government has concluded negotiations with Microsoft on a pan-government agreement for the next three years.
It became apparent during discussions that a formal agreement with Microsoft is no longer appropriate.
Microsoft have agreed to provide recommended retail price certainty for agencies as a basis for their individual negotiations, and the State Services Commission will be supporting agencies to explore how they can maximise their ICT investment and achieve greater value for money.
Since 2000 the government has negotiated a series of three-year agreements with Microsoft, enabling public sector agencies to purchase Microsoft products on an opt-in basis.
In late 2008 the State Services Commission commenced leading the re-negotiation of the G2006 Microsoft agreement on behalf of government agencies, and established an advisory steering committee comprised of senior executives from the largest IT purchasers in the public sector.
Contact: Marian Mortensen, State Services Commission: 04 495 6620 or 021 2441475
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Roy Schestowitz said,
May 26, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Update: there are finally some news reports on the subject.
twitter said,
May 26, 2009 at 11:13 pm
This should be put into context with M$’s general dependence on these kinds of agreements. New Zealand’s nine year agreement is the kind of steady money that Windows used to provide M$. IT people noticed what a rip off these agreements were five years ago – as soon as they were signed, M$ basically quit making upgrades to their software. Vista and the new Office have capped that deal off famously, not only did they not get the upgrades M$ promissed when making the agreement, no one wanted the upgrades when they finally came. As these agreements expire, M$’s revenues will drop through the floor.
A fried from New Zealand writes me:
There you go. The more of this that happens, the fastester the M$ monopoly will unravel. What did M$ once say, “Under no circumstance lose to Linux”?
G. Michaels said,
May 27, 2009 at 12:31 am
twitter has a friend in New Zealand? In New Zealand?? A friend that spells Microsoft with a dollar sign and sounds exactly like the legendary nymshifter troll that was kicked out of Slashdot and a few other online communities? Will these wonders never end!?