Microsoft controlling Govt 2.0 funds

The Government 2.0 Taskforce yesterday released a draft contract for those receiving money from its Project Fund, which revealed that any funding contracts will be between successful bidders and Microsoft, not the Commonwealth.

The Project Fund was used by the Taskforce to fund initiatives that will provide input into its final report and building up government agency "web 2.0 capabilities". The Taskforce has already asked for two rounds of project submissions.

Yet the government has only now revealed that the funding arrangements must be made via Microsoft. It needed to be so because the taskforce was not a legal entity and money was pulled from the Project Fund, according to the government — a partnership with Microsoft that used funds from a special Service Provision Fund.

The Taskforce has said on its website that despite Microsoft managing the purse strings of the Project Fund, it will not have a part deciding which projects are funded. However, the blog post where the announcement about the contracts was made yesterday has drawn considerable discussion, particularly on the issue of intellectual property (IP).

Microsoft Australia's head of government and industry affairs, Simon Edwards, looked to quiet some of the IP concerns by posting in Microsoft's Australian Government Affairs blog. "If a contractor creates IP it will have agreed (in its contract with Microsoft) to assign or licence that IP to the Commonwealth. Microsoft does not share the IP. Microsoft does not own the IP. Microsoft has no rights to the IP," Edwards wrote.

Concerns were also expressed over clauses of the contract draft which may allow Microsoft to replace an employee with an employee approved by Microsoft, or require employees to undertake compulsory training.

Edwards said that Microsoft was happy to look at suggestions to the contract as long as Microsoft's integrity and risk exposure was maintained.

Advertisement

Talkback 9 comments

    Not news Steve Collins -- 01/10/09

    This has always been the case and both the Taskforce and Microsoft have made such clear. While the details of the contracts developers must sign to access funds are new, they are also openly subject to negotiation, or so it seems through discussion on both the Open Australia and Gov 2.0 Australia mailing lists.

    Half a story and inadequate research...

    How can this not be an issue?? Anonymous -- 01/10/09 (in reply to #320351007)

    This allows MS to control who gets paid and when. It also allows MS, who is and should only be considered a vendor, to know who gets the work, what the scope of their work is and how much they charge for the services.

    Since MS knows all of this information, what is stopping them undercutting the price or at least advising their partners of the competitive pricing to ensure only MS related products are used?

    This is an absolutely disgusting move in this day and age!! MS cannot be trusted, they are in court in most countries over the world for committing anti-competitive behaviours, how can this be allowed?????

    There be dragons sanjay -- 02/10/09 (in reply to #320351271)

    I thought all the open source fanboys had grown up. Apparently not.

    ???? Anonymous -- 02/10/09 (in reply to #320352437)

    Where in any of the previous posts has open source been mentioned?

    There be dragons sanjay -- 02/10/09 (in reply to #320352647)

    And where did I mention "open source"?

    I referred to "open source fanboys", meaning nutcases who think some boring administrative contract represents a nasty Microsoft conspiracy.

    Do you really think Microsoft gives a rats about the rubbish that will be submitted to the Australian gov2.0 taskforce?

    Why? Steve -- 02/10/09 (in reply to #320352437)

    Are you going to go on an elaborate your "grown up" argument Sanjay...?

    Or, just call people names?

    Because KRUDD said so Mel Sommersberg -- 02/10/09 (in reply to #320351271)

    Read the article again:-

    "Yet the government has only now revealed that the funding arrangements must be made via Microsoft."

    At the end of the day the Commonwealth Government is pulling Microsoft's strings. Blame KRUDD for the problem, not Microsoft.

    It must be true Anonymous -- 02/10/09 (in reply to #320351007)

    "While the details of the contracts developers must sign to access funds are new, they are also openly subject to negotiation."

    Sure, there open to negotiation with developers.

    A jubilant competition winner being in an equal bargaining position against one of the world's largest companies with concomitantly large legal department.

    It doesn't take that much imagination to project how "open" these negotiations might be.

    Bad Cheese Smells Bad Everywhere Anonymous -- 06/10/09

    I do not claim to have a clue as to what is going on in OZ. BUT leaving Microsoft managing any Public works project smells bad.

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Chris Duckett Carelessness busts Linux security
    No operating system can ever properly protect a computer from trojans as long as users continue to do silly things. Just because Linux is immune to your standard drive-by viruses it does not mean that it can escape trojan horses.
  • Array Sun shining on Ajnaware
    Graham Dawson talks about the future of iPhone app development and augmented reality.
  • Array Holiday IT to-do lists
    The fast-approaching holiday season is a great time to update your IT systems while everything's quiet.
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured