One of the often-repeated mantras chanted by the Ministry for IT is that one of the primary goals is to make Malta an IT hub. Over the past few years we have heard the Ministry announce a number of new projects. Unfortunately, all of these seem to have one thing in common: suppliers are required to provide solutions based on Microsoft's products, or be rejected automatically. Local software developers have to adapt to a monopoly’s practices, whether they like it or not.

While the initiatives to promote the use of IT are all very commendable, the government's actions are akin to granting a State monopoly to a single foreign multinational company – one which has already been found guilty of monopolistic practices in both the USA and EU – for all things software-related in the government.

Rumour has it that this state of affairs came about as a result of the times when software piracy in Malta was so commonplace that there were thousands of illegally copied software titles (mostly Microsoft products) even on government computers, and that the government struck a deal with Microsoft to avert any embarrassing legal actions in return for granting Microsoft a monopoly on all types of software which the latter produces.

Obviously this monopoly on software costs us money. Big money. Microsoft's products are notoriously expensive, and when we talk about the government we have thousands of computers, with software price tags ranging from hundreds to thousands of liri each. And it is the common citizen who is paying for it through taxes.

Monopolies rarely benefit anyone except the company granted the monopoly. Even in our small country we have seen immediate benefits every time a market is liberalised. Software is no exception. There is healthy competition throughout Europe, and European governments at State and local level are constantly on the lookout for better alternatives, especially those that would reduce their licensing costs. Often, the spotlight in this ring falls on open source software, which provides not only substantially lower short- and long-term costs, but ensures that the client (in this case the government) is not bound to any one vendor or supplier, but is truly free to choose the best deal for itself.

The time has come for the Minister responsible for IT to let the public know what the agreements made between our country and Microsoft are. Why is it that all suppliers are compelled to use Microsoft products when delivering systems to the government, even if a system based on other products would drastically lower the licensing fees, which we will ultimately have to pay, and provide a better service? Is the State monopoly to Microsoft an official thing or merely a secret, unwritten rule? Perhaps the Minister could act in advance of the freedom of information policies that are gaining ground and come clean.

Ralph Cassar is the spokesperson for Energy, Industry and IT and a member of the executive of Alternattiva Demokratika – The Green Party.

e-mail: [email protected]