The article focused so much on what Microsoft is lobbying for and Microsoft's use of rhetoric for its own ends, but seemed to place little blame on the Cabinet Office itself.
What does the author expect Microsoft to argue for besides use of its own products and standards?
Really, it would be far more valuable to call out the Cabinet Office's decision makers and the process they use for coming to these kinds of decisions.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/open_standards_when_sp...
"But there's a larger point here. Many hardware standards are indeed FRAND rather than RF, but contrary to Microsoft's assertion in the letter of 20 May, these would not 'be excluded by PPN 3/11's definition of Open Standards.' And the reason is extremely simple: because that original Open Standards document began by declaring:
"When purchasing software, ICT infrastructure, ICT security and other ICT goods and services, Cabinet Office recommends that Government departments should wherever possible deploy open standards in their procurement specifications.
"It then goes on to emphasise:
"Government departments should ensure that they include open standards in their ICT procurement specifications unless there are clear business reasons why this is inappropriate.
"That is, there are already two very clear get-out clauses that would permit the use of FRAND standards when there were no RF standards available, or - even more flexibly - if there were 'clear business reasons why [the use of RF open standards] is inappropriate'.
"Nobody is suggesting that GSM phones, say, should be banned from UK government use, as Microsoft's letter seems to insinuate. For a start, these are hardware standards, and not about software interoperability at all; secondly, there are no comparable RF open standards that could be used, and even if there were, there would be clear business reasons why GSM phones should still be purchased. There simply isn't a problem here."
It appears from the article Microsoft is asserting that some interpretations which would be disfavorable to Microsoft have broader implications if applied uniformly across the spectrum of ICT goods and services.
The author wants to draw a distinction between software and hardware under the law without supplying evidence that such a distinction is made within it, e.g. his claim about GSM being acceptable is based on "nobody suggesting."
The author appears to have an ax to grind, democratic processes be damned.
