November 2005 ISSUE

COMPLIANCE

Microsoft Fails in Leave for Appeal Bid

Periodically, members inquire on the current situation relating to the use of the word “engineer” in the title Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, or MCSE.

In the year 2000, APEGGA’s Compliance Department launched a focused awareness program with the approximately 90 learning institutions offering the MCSE program in Alberta. As a result of the increased awareness and cooperation received from these various institutions, we are observing a substantial reduction in the number of violations.

Many institutions are simply using the acronym without any reference to the word “engineer.” Others have replaced “engineer” with “expert.”

During this period, APEGGA Council also began the process of strengthening the EGGP Act and L’Ordre de ingéniéurs du Quebec brought successful action against Microsoft under Quebec’s Professional Code.

The following news release explains recent developments in Quebec.

Microsoft must pay an earlier fine over a right-to-title infraction, the Quebec courts have decided. The Ordre des ingénieurs du Quebec is happy with the latest development in a controversy dating from 2001.

On Oct. 4, the Quebec Court of Appeal rejected Microsoft's application for leave to appeal an earlier judgment by the Quebec Superior Court.

The Quebec association had filed penal proceedings against Microsoft Canada Co. for having knowingly, through authorization or encouragement, caused a person who is not a member to use the designation “engineer,” thereby committing an offence under Section 188.1 of the Profes-sional Code, R.S.Q., c. C-26.

In the dispute between the OIQ and Microsoft Canada Co., Judge Cohen of Québec Superior Court had already rejected the multinational's appeal. As the result of the latest decision by Judge Louise Mailhot of the Court of Appeal, the judgment in the first instance, rendered by Judge Claude Millette on April 5, 2004, becomes enforceable.

With the guilty judgment upheld, Microsoft must now pay the $1,000 fine imposed.

After pressure had been applied by groups that included the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers and the Ordre des ingénieurs du Quebec, Microsoft Corporation announced in May 2001 its intention to stop using the term “engineer” in Canada in the title Microsoft Certified System Engineers, or MCSE.

However, in July 2002 Microsoft Canada reversed its position and notified the 35,000 people it had certified in Canada that they could “continue to use the title engineer as part of the title Microsoft Certified System Engineer.” In response, the Ordre des ingénieurs du Quebec publicly stated its objection to the position expressed by Microsoft Canada.

As part of its campaign against unlawful practice, and in particular the unlawful use of the title of engineer, the OIQ then began the inquiry that led to these penal proceedings. The trial judgment was in favour of the OIQ and the multinational appealed that judgment.

Gaétan Samson, ing., president of the OIQ, said: “The OIQ is very satisfied with the result of its actions. The court's refusal to grant the multinational leave to appeal is very important for the professional system because it sets a precedent. It has been clearly demonstrated that the title of engineer, alone or with descriptors, is reserved exclusively for members of the OIQ.”

ACTIVITY REPORT

Editor’s Note: The following statistics track this year’s Compliance Department activity from Jan. 1 to May 31.

*Note: Other files were resolved for various reasons such as confirmation that an individual or company is already registered with APEGGA, verification that an individual contacted is not living or working in Alberta, clarification that a company is actually a trade name of a member etc.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION

Q: Is there a concern with the activities of graduates of the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, or MCSE, program?

A: The activity of the graduates is not considered to be the practice of engineering. Use of the word “engineer” in the title is misleading to the public and is in violation of the EGGP Act, Section 3(1), as it implies that the individuals are professional engineers.