Government 2.0 Project Fund

There has been some really interesting discussion on the Government 2.0 blog with regards to the Terms and Conditions of the contract Microsoft will sign with those selected by the Taskforce to undertake projects funded from the Project Fund.

It has been suggested that Microsoft could “gain IP through a government endorsed competition”.

This was an issue we were very aware of when we discussed with the Taskforce Secretariat what a services contract would look like. Our absolute intention was to make clear that Microsoft would NOT hold or own the IP from projects funded from the Project Fund. We looked at options and settled on the concept of a Services Contract and a Deed of Agreement.

The services contract will define the legal relationship between Microsoft and the project contractor (whoever that might be). In basic contract terms, the Terms and Conditions are intended to ensure that, for the payment by Microsoft of a given sum from the Project Fund, a contractor will deliver a defined product.

While each services contract stands alone they have to be read in conjunction with the Deed of Agreement. The Deed sets out the legal relationship between Microsoft and the Commonwealth as far as the Project Fund is concerned.

As everyone can now see, the Deed requires that Microsoft must arrange an assignment or licence for the Commonwealth for all IP from projects funded from the Project Fund. So 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.

I can’t say we wont be interested in the IP created in the projects – of course we will be looking at it with interest like everyone else – but it wont belong to Microsoft and Microsoft will have no greater interest in the IP than any other person or organisation.

If there are any questions from a potential contractor regarding IP ownership they will best advised to discuss those with the Taskforce in the first instance as that will be our course of action if the issue is raised with us.

As John Sheridan indicated in one of his contributions to the blog last night, “Microsoft continues to be amenable to negotiation within the limits of the deed and reasonable commercial arrangements”. What does that mean? Well to me it means we are happy to look at any proposals in relation to the contract that maintain the integrity of our relationship with the Taskforce, ensure the IP of projects goes to the Commonwealth (to deal with as they see fit in line with their publicly announced policy) and which do not expose the shareholders of Microsoft to additional financial or reputational risks.

I noted with interest the proposal of Andrew Perry to develop a set of contractual principles for data released under an open licence. For some time now Microsoft representatives have spoken about the same issue from the perspective of software developed for and used in mixed source environments – the norm in most commercial circumstances. Web 2.0 is showing why these very real issues need discussion and resolution. I really look forward to seeing how Andrew’s wiki and other projects looking at intellectual property in the world of Web2.0 progress.

Last night when I discussed some of the postings on the Government 2.0 blog with a colleague, he reminded me that many people just don’t and wont trust Microsoft – or any corporation. This is perhaps regrettable but also understandable – I’m not one who trusts ‘entities’ much at all. I have always believed though that you judge by what someone does not what they say. Over the next couple of months I hope everyone will judge that in relation to projects funded from the Project Fund what Microsoft does, is what we said we would do.

Simon Edwards Head of Government & Industry Affairs

Technorati Tags: Web2.0,Government 2.0,Contract,Microsoft,Project Fund