Microsoft controlling Australian Gov't 2.0 funds

Microsoft controlling Australian Gov't 2.0 funds

Summary: Australia's Government 2.0 Taskforce has revealed that any contracts for its Project Fund will be between successful bidders and Microsoft, not the Commonwealth

SHARE:
TOPICS: Networking
1

On Wednesday, Australia's Government 2.0 Taskforce 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 to build 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 in deciding which projects are funded. However, the blog post where the announcement about the contracts was made on Wednesday 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 one approved by the software giant, or require employees to undertake compulsory training.

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

Topic: Networking

About

Chris started his journalistic adventure in 2006 as the Editor of Builder AU after originally joining CBS as a programmer. After a Canadian sojourn, he returned in 2011 as the Editor of TechRepublic Australia, and is now the Australian Editor of ZDNet.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

1 comment
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • It is best if Microsoft completely controls this

    It really would be best if Microsoft completely controlled the process. When one vendor completely controls an area of software this creates greater efficiencies because then additional expenses are not incurred reviewing competing options.
    Additionally, given Microsofts spotless record as a fair player in the marketplace whose only objective if to create the best possible products at the lowest possible price, there need be no concerns about MS inappropriately leveraging its immense power.

    Some documentation to support this in the link below
    http://www.albion.com/microsoft/findings.html
    dfolk2