Did Microsoft lobby? Certainty, did they "interfere with a sovereign nation's decision to create a level playing-field"? Please, give me a break, they interfered with your desire to do something, and whether right or wrong, the last time I checked, you weren't a sovereign nation.
Open software requires support approximately as much as proprietary systems do. The unfortunate fact is that although one can call Microsoft technical support, one cannot "get Linux on the phone."
The open software ecosystem is changing for the worse - e.g. Oracle's IP strategy with regard to software developed by Sun, particularly the mission critical (for a government) Open Office suite.
Do not misunderstand me, I have political concerns about governments partnering with business as the gateway to a slippery slope.
Were this story about IBM rather than Microsoft, it would largely pass unnoticed on HN (and were it a story about government using iPads which depend on Apple's cloud the praise would be laid on so thick one would need hip waders).
Oh please; both Canonical (Ubuntu) and Red Hat are more than happy to take your money in return for picking up the phone. Not only that there are hundreds of medium and small companies that will do the same, not mention the thousands of individual contractors. If not being able to pick up the phone and get someone on the other end to help with your Linux problems is bugging you, give me your money I'll be happy to fix your problem.
Keeping in mind that Linux is but a stand in for open source in general, of course they are as ready to take one's money as Microsoft is.
I suspect that Canonical is no more likely to recommend switching to a Red Hat distro than they are to recommend switching to Microsoft...and vice versa.
But to delve into the larger issue, is Canonical or Red Hat more expert in supporting Open Office or are one's citizens better served by a separate contract with Oracle for that support?
And if one doesn't go to Oracle for that support, does one switch to Office Libre and if so, who does a government hire to manage that switch?
At the scale of the UK government, there is no course which is free of vendor lock-in. Governments don't pivot.
--
Some figures - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3734504.stm, single project overspend of £24 billion GBP (side issue: why isn't that the suppliers problem for arsing up their estimate); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_Ltd., gives Canonical revenue at around £30 million USD.
How the hell do they manage to arse things up so badly.
Lobbying is lobbying. It is not interfering. That's my point.