MS Pressuring Schools: Pay Up, Or Face Audit

[Jimbo]

I have followed this case in various Linux websites, and they are doing just that. Several people have suggested it, some people are getting touch with the schools in question and I heard the local LUG (Linux Users Group) is planning to get involved as well.

YES!!!!

 

[MajesticMoose]

It would be incredibly ironic if all the schools just switched to linux instead of going along with MS.

 

[Tiranee]

Its funny how the "random" audit got all the largest school districts. Also as the article said they are also targeting school districts that are thinking/slowly going to linux.

M$ are pricks, even if they are within their rights.

 

[crypticlogin]

<< Many also consider the audit requirement a strong-arm tactic to push school districts into Microsoft's costly system-wide licensing agreements.
"Given the fact that the letter came from their marketing department, and included a brochure about their school licensing agreement, this didn't seem terribly subtle to any of us," said Steve Carlson, associate superintendent for information and technology for Beaverton schools. >>


So again, it's morally reprehensible of Microsoft to try and sell service with service? It's morally reprehensible for my credit card company to send me these credit transfer forms every few months so I can save interest from my other cards? If I've been a good customer and made my payments, met the terms of the contract placed forth at the start, then I have, at all times, the option to (a) not buy into this extra service and (b) discontinue my current service if I'm unhappy with my current service. If your answer is yes, there are companies out there that are more unethical and underhanded than MS... and not a word is being said about them.


<< Again, your example is off. >>


Well then we're even.


<< It's like the car dealer trying to force you into an extended warranty 3 years after buying the car, and then threatening retribution if you don't. >>


Threatening retribution? Like paying an amount of money to MS simply because MS says "give us money.", period? I didn't read anything in the article that says the school's going to be needlessly punished for fulfilling their terms of the contract. What I do read is MS is requiring an audit and *IF THEY FAIL THE AUDIT* (I get the feeling you're missing that subtlety), they'll be forced into that new plan to get the district properly licensed. I also read that MS is giving the school district to hide their unlicensed machines with the MSA. Nobody is "pointing a gun" at the district, forcing them to follow up their current licensing with buying into a new licensing plan as long as everything's properly licensed. If all of their MS computers are properly licensed with MS kit, they should be able to pass the audit no problem and not have to worry about any forced licensing plans they don't want or can't afford.

If the school district can't manage its computers and inventory, that's their management problem. If they don't have the manpower to handle all of the computers, someone made some poor choices before the MS licensing contract was even signed. The school brought this upon themselves.



<< Nor was anyone available to explain why Microsoft failed to notify the two groups chartered to represent the schools in licensing negotiations, the Oregon Educational Technology Consortium and the Washington School Information Processing Cooperative. >>


Now I don't know about this. This part doesn't sound right. There, I've supported someone else so I don't sound like an anti-anti-MS zealot (in my defense of which has historically been the next attack when someone supports Microsoft).

 

[Nemesis77]

<< If the school district can't manage its computers and inventory, that's their management problem. If they don't have the manpower to handle all of the computers, someone made some poor choices before the MS licensing contract was even signed. The school brought this upon themselves. >>



That article doesn't say that they have signed a MS-licensing contract, it says that large part of the computers were donated, so the licensing should have been handled by whoever donated the machines. Now, MS walzes in, assumes they are guilty until proven innocent (I always thought it was other way around), and demands that they make a full inventory on some 25.000 computers and their software in 60 days. Considering the fact that they made that demand during the school-year when the techs have their hands full even without nuisanse-audits by MS. Basically, MS is asking for something that cannot be done. Oh, there's an alternative: MS does tghe audit, but if they find even one piece of software without proper license (and they will find one, we are talking about a school here, students don't always play by the rules), the school ends up paying MS for the audit. There is a third alternative: Pay MS for each computer the school has, no matter if it's Mac or PC. You pay MS twice for the software, and you even pay for software that you don't have (in case of Macs). Basically they have two bad choices and one impossible choice.

That is a great way to do business: blackmail your customers.

 

[BDawg]

<< Threatening retribution? Like paying an amount of money to MS simply because MS says "give us money.", period? I didn't read anything in the article that says the school's going to be needlessly punished for fulfilling their terms of the contract. >>



The clue phone is ringing...please answer it.

What is being said here is, "Hey, think about buying our new lisencing structure (the one no one likes). If you don't...we may have to request and audit from the terms of the original agreement."

It's not about fulfilling the terms of the contract. It's enforcing parts of the contract only if the school systems don't buy into the new licensing structure.

This is treatening retribution. Sure, it might be tough for a MS fanboy to pickup...then again, there are some people who prefer calling the Mafia "Legitimate Businessmen." Something tells me the mafia would lay off the school system.

 

[crypticlogin]

<< Now, MS walzes in, assumes they are guilty until proven innocent (I always thought it was other way around), and demands that they make a full inventory on some 25.000 computers and their software in 60 days. >>


You admit later in your post, that even students don't always play by the rules. Microsoft is likely doing the same on this decision.



<< Basically they have two bad choices and one impossible choice.
That is a great way to do business: blackmail your customers. >>


Neither party's a perfect angel, I'll concede to that that. And I don't fully know about the district's or MS's audit process so I'll assume the ITs quoted in the article really know what's an impossible task.



<< What is being said here is, "Hey, think about buying our new lisencing structure (the one no one likes). If you don't...we may have to request and audit from the terms of the original agreement."

It's not about fulfilling the terms of the contract. It's enforcing parts of the contract only if the school systems don't buy into the new licensing structure. >>


I perfectly understand your interpretation -- no need to reiterate everything. My interpretation is that MS called the district's bluff that they were in full compliance and this is one of their ways to collect. Fine, it isn't the greatest business tactic in terms of ethics but...



<< Sure, it might be tough for a MS fanboy to pickup... >>


I predicted it towards the end of my last post but there it is, labeling me an MS "fanboy" if my opinion doesn't go with the vogue of speaking against Microsoft (this ugly head almost always appears in Anyone vs. MS arguments).

I don't care for MS on some issues but this is the way MS has executed business for years, a way that's been popularized through the chain of employees who deal with the licensing process, anti-MS websites, groups, mailing lists, and yet only when it involves non-profits does it fully awaken the call for MS blood. Yet little attention's drawn when MS pulls it on large business and universities (they're mostly for profit.. I hope you're not going to fight that one). Where's the call of injustice and morality in those cases? Just because the big business and for-profits can afford it, people lay back and say "yeah, serves them right." I must have missed the last time a linux group rallys to support CompanyX when MS "asks" them to be audited. Nope, no double standard here.



<< Something tells me the mafia would lay off the school system. >>


And that comes from...?

 

[BDawg]

<< I must have missed the last time a linux group rallys to support CompanyX when MS "asks" them to be audited. Nope, no double standard here. >>



In my defense, I regularly bust on Quark and Adobe for similar anti-consumer behavior.