Microsoft contracts under fire

MANY GOVERNMENT UNITS have regulations prohibiting purchases from dodgy suppliers, including Maricopa County in Arizona, where citizens are challenging local authorities to justify continuing to do business with Microsoft in light of its proven violations of US Antitrust law.

The relevant County code reads, in part:

"MC1-902 DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION OF CONTRACTORS ... B. The causes for Debarment or Suspension shall include, but are not limited to, the following: ... 2. Conviction of any Person or any subsidiary or affiliate of any Person under any statute of the Federal government, this State or its political subdivision or any other State for: ... k. Any other offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty which affects responsibility as a Contractor. 3. Conviction or civil judgment finding a violation by any Person or any subsidiary or affiliate of any Person under State or Federal Antitrust Statutes."

The complaining citizens observe that Microsoft has not only been found to have violated US Antitrust law (category B.3) but has also engaged in some unethical business practices alleged in both past and pending court cases (category B.2.k). They are protesting that the County is spending millions of tax dollars on Microsoft products even though regulations prohibit such contracts. They want to have Microsoft debarred in favor of Open Source software, since these alternatives are available and are in use by governments elsewhere (they cite Germany and Taiwan, but could just as well mention South Korea and some towns in Scandanavia, too).

County employees will be meeting with the public next Monday morning to "...provide a forum in which to discuss our technology direction and address any questions...."

The whole story thus far can be found here.

While it may be argued that Microsoft has not been convicted of fraud, price-fixing, or similar criminal shenanigans that will typically get a government supplier debarred, it does seem that the concerned citizens of Phoenix, AZ do have a good point about that Antitrust provision.µ