Google Sues The US Government For Only Considering Microsoft Solutions
from the hubris dept
Eric Goldman alerts us to the interesting bit of news that Google has sued the US government -- specifically the Department of the Interior, for not seriously considering Google Apps when it put out a Request for Quotation (RFQ) to handle its messaging needs. Specifically, the DOI stated upfront in the RFQ that the solution had to be part of the Microsoft Business Productivity Online Suite. Google is making the argument that this is "unduly restrictive of competition," and it seems like they've got a decent argument there.Most of the lawsuit details the history of meetings and conversations between Google and the DOI, where Google sought to convince the DOI that its solution was acceptable. The DOI justified limiting its offerings to Microsoft, by saying that Microsoft had two things that other solution providers did not: unified/consolidated email and "enhanced security." Google disputes this (not surprisingly) and notes various problems with Microsoft solutions -- including well reported downtime issues. Google protested the RFQ when it was released, but the GAO dismissed Google's protest saying that since Google does not have a GSA schedule contract (i.e., what you need to sell to the gov't), it was "not an interested party." Anyway, should make for an interesting lawsuit if it goes anywhere...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: competition, department of the interior, messaging, single-source
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Microsoft - Security. Someone is seriously delusional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sure that some people will claim this is not the case. I invite them to consider the 100-200 million operational examples of this problem, including the ones on Microsoft's own network: see http://krebsonsecurity.com/2010/10/pill-gang-used-microsofts-network-to-attack-krebsonsecurity-com/ for one such instance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I also have to contend that you can secure Windows, it just isn't done for the majority of consumers out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
However the security question relevant to the writeup concerns Microsoft business apps, especially the Exchange server (and client) nightmare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:link for attacks using microsofts network
Oh wait... there is that important note about it being Unix and Linux based servers that caused the problems. Not a problem with a Windows based system. Good skimming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:link for attacks using microsofts network
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Stunning that anyone would argue that Google Apps measures up to BPOS in any way at all. Missing about 50% of the actual applications. Missing 50% of the functionality in the applications it does have. Totally lacking in integration. Half the groups that go with Google go ONLY for email and half of them switch back. Google is good at a lot of things but office functionality at a real business level is not one of them. It is also one of Microsoft's areas of complete expertise.
Maybe GOogle should offer to eat and repay the total cost of running a competitive bid if they lose? Otherwise I'm glad to see the government saving some tax dollars and just getting on with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the clue as usual
What does "office functionality" have to do with anything? This contract is for "messaging". Any functionality that is not in the scope of the contract is "bloat" that just gets in the way. But again bloat is the Microsoft way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. You cite an attack on a Linux system at Microsoft as an "operational example" of Windows security.
2. You're making security claims about the Windows desktop OS in the comments for an article about a Microsoft cloud service.
Making dumb "EVIL M$!!!!" posts was played out in 1998, and it's still played out in 2010.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I suggest linking to a less self-defeating article in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The most obvious conclusions to be drawn from the article to which you refer, Darren,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/019578.html
http://www.readwriteweb.com/cloud/201 0/09/googles-internal-security-brea.php
http://www.itsecurity.com/features/famous-google-hack-job s-051407/
It goes on and on and on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google's Conquest of the World Starts
I am not joking! Not even in the tiniest of bits!!! Ok, Ok, maybe a little.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google's Conquest of the World Starts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google's Conquest of the World Starts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google's Conquest of the World Starts
Criticizing the "terrifying" massively opensource Google in a post from your locked-down windows computer (the ones who claim to have 95% market share in the OS market but don't disturb you, and don't even give you the choice when you buy a PC, even if you already have a win licence), before pausing your locked-down Ipod because you have a call on your locked-down Iphone.
All those newly-revealed grandstanders are pitiful to say the least.
The only person I could accept, or at least listen to such an argument from ("blah blah Google bad blah blah dominate world"), would be a person using some Gentoo Linux, compiling his own packages, not letting any closed-source package in, and not using any Web-based service (except his own, on his own server), plus a condition on the mobile phone he has (free software only, some OpenMoko or Cyanogen Android I guess).
But I guess you probably don't match the description, you've been supporting dirty monopolies for years and suddenly selectively take on one (and only this one, no other) in order to... I don't know what, but it does probably have to do with self sufficience.
There is room for critics, but you have to live up to your own standard and not just be another Lily Allen taking on "piracy"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google's Conquest of the World Starts
I worry how close I come to that description! Currently using Arch Linux as my primary OS, but cut my teeth on Linux From Scratch and Gentoo. Currently using third party servers, but for the reason of I don't own my internet connection rather than don't want to run my own server. My mobile phone runs Maemo and I plan to upgrade to Meego next year if 1.2 is stable for handsets. By the way, using open source every day shouldn't be a pretence for 'I audit the code running on my PC', because even when I did compile every single package on my system I rarely looked at a line of code myself.
All that and despite aspiring to run my own email I'm using Gmail in the meantime because while I have reservations about Google, I trust them more than my ISP or as much as some other random service provider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google's Conquest of the World Starts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Us Government deals
However the cases I am aware of were nothing like as blatant as this one. Actually naming the (underlying) preferred supplier in the spec. is going a bit far. The usual practice is to write in an obscure (and usually pointless) technical requirement that they know other bidders won't be able to meet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Us Government deals
Mind you, it might not be all that bad in this case as retraining thousands of workers to use Google Apps instead of what they have been using for years might be a bit of a cost. Nevermind all that data on Google servers rather than gov't. desktops.
Chris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Us Government deals
- The contracts always had requirements that were worded specifically with one vendor in mind (this MS case is a good example - maybe a bit too good)
- The RFPs that are "designated" for a specific vendor always had very short windows. (unless you already had a response ready there is no way you could even gather info in time to respond)
- Pricing was agreed to beforehand so that it could be used to justify the targeted contractor (if you bid too high or too low they could use that as a tie breaker in case you got close in the rest of your requirements)
As far as I know these shortcuts were taken in the interest of hurrying a project along... and largely because the intended contractor was a known entity. If an underachieving contractor won a bid it was a HUGE headache for both our schedule and budget.
What always made me the most angry was when hiring was done via the same process. Usually people got hired to the GS world only after their performance was vetted as a contractor. If management liked someone's performance as a contractor they would steal them away by writing a vague job announcement that had ridiculous requirements for exact words/phrases in CVs (then the requirements would be handed over to the applicant).
It was always done in a manner where it would be your word against theirs if you wanted to turn someone in. Never in email, never over the phone, nothing incriminating on paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Us Government deals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Us Government deals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
classic government
Efforts to end corruption have done nothing but create a legal framework to justify corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: classic government
Exactly, but you and I know the vast majority of people would rather not think about it aslong as they are doing ok for themselves.
One prediction may turn out true which is "man destroying man". At the end of the day by hurting the people they are going to hurt themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neither of those situations is unique to government purchasing. Government, at least, as rules in place that are supposed to protect against fixed bids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However I should also have mentioned that these tricks don't always work. Our company did manage to actually secure one of the contracts that had been set up (by and) for someone else. We had a partner who knew how to get past these things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deafening Silence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think I missed something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think I missed something
If it was simply "we don't like your product", I imagine there wouldn't be an issue either. The only reason there's a case seems to be because the DOI specifically stated that the solution needed to be MS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think I missed something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think I missed something
(Think of it like a reverse auction. Cheapest seller wins)
Namely, they go out and look for the cheapest, most efficient way to spend taxpayer money.
If the government refuses to view a cheaper alternative, simply because microsoft is paying off the people writing the RFQ, that's anticompetitive, and likely illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think I missed something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think I missed something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think I missed something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think I missed something
This would be the basis of Google's lawsuit. For Online documents, there are more than 3 possible bidders. Microsoft, Google and Oracle come to mind immediately.
There may yet be more lawsuits before this is over. Google's bid should have been considered. Even if the contract was awarded prior to the tendering. If reported accurately in the article, then it was an illegal bid, and will have to be re-bid.
When the Judge looks at it, he will have enough real information to decide. Reported facts often differ from real facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think I missed something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think I missed something
Imagine that you are a mayor of a city, and you have a friend to works in construction. It would be unfair for you to higher your friend to install new roads in your city, without considering bids from other contractors. This type of system would eventually turn into a "who knows who" and bribery system.
So the US Government 'may' have actually broken the law since they are required to have an open bid and consider all possible contractors.
Google has no right to sue any private party for not considering their products (Walmart, Ford, etc.) But they do have a right to sue the US Government. Everyone is supposed to get an even shot when it comes to public bids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think I missed something
put an RFQ stating "the solution had to be part of the Microsoft Business Productivity."
If this was the case the Government should have gone directly to Microsoft. No need for an RFQ and wasting people's time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
In fact, it comes down to a larger problem: In the absence of government corruption, anarchy will give way to organized crime--who practice standard corruption of shakedowns (taxes) and murder (penal code).
So really, the only question is do you prefer your organized crime to be in the form of a government or do you prefer your organized crime to be in the form of a mafia? Same sh*t, either way. But at least the governments attempt a little lip-service to the ideals of 'freedom' and 'justice' as it would do them no good service with the people do be seen for the despotic fascists they really are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
Everywhere.
I can point you to any number of federal contracts here in Canada that were rigged from day 1, often for the lamest of reasons.
Here in British Columbia all I need so is point you towards the sale of BC Rail, rigged from the start to go to Canadian National and, guess what?, it did!
Government corruption in letting contracts is as old as the concept of government. What's different these days is the fiction of "open contract bids" which is just that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google vs US Govt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google vs US Govt
And I work in public education, there's no problem specifying the product, the issue is the supplier - you need to price the item from several suppliers to find the lowest price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competition is good
We had always bought parking meters from the same company. The traffic department had all kinds of reasons for only using one company. Instead of ordering meters once a year they ordered a few every week in order to stay below bid requirements. They assured everyone that the we were getting a better-than-market price because the company knew we were loyal customers. A new City Manager came on board and insisted that they put out a competitive bid. We ended up buying the same meters from the same company, but the bid prices was 40% of the per-meter price we had been paying when they knew they did not have competition.
The other example was IT. The IT shop was hard-core HP. We needed a Unix box that was going to be located in the machine room, but would be independent of any other system. HP gave us a quote, and the IT Director assured us that for budgeting purposes we could count on their bid price matching the quote because that is what they always did. The specs that IT put together effectively locked us into the HP quote. My boss inserted a paragraph saying functional equivalents or better would be accepted. The HP rep was shocked when gave the contract to IBM. After the fact the IT director told us that he had not realized how much HP had taken his loyalty for granted. The next set of bids that they put in went to HP, but at much lower prices than he expected, and they were suddenly getting all kinds of offers for free services from HP. We also got a new sales rep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
City of LA might start suing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
City of LA might start suing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
www.web-privacy.edu.tc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Microsoft cloud computing....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you're right, but it depends on the motive. Google seems to want to increase competition here, rather than just buy out the prime.
Government contract ethics is a difficult situation to navigate. The government and the companies bidding for contracts are always finding ethical dilemmas in the process and continually revising policies. Guess which costs more, between revising policies and going with what has been done for at least a year.
Personally, I would like to see the government use more Google services. I know that in some ways, they already do.
But to answer the question as to how its illegal to not consider some companies for certain contracts, the government does have some policies that exclude anyone but Microsoft, but also others that promise a fair look at all companies bidding. When it comes to certain jobs that the government has to contract out, much of the time, the government has to also know that the company and its employees are US Citizens who possess Security Clearances; especially with regard to the Department of Defense contacts for software and software maintenance.
That being said, when I was in the Army, it was almost impossible to use anything that wasn't Microsoft, Adobe, or Symantec (or Norton) on a government computer. When I did get approval for Netscape or Firefox, it would only last until they pushed an update and removed my software using blanket policies.
Funny story; in 2003 my unit bought Macromedia (before Adobe acquired them) Dreamweaver for me to maintain the unit's website and then told me I had to use FrontPage and my IT guys 'acquired' the copy of Dreamweaver from my desk while I was out to lunch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buying out the prime does increase competition. Nothing is preventing a partner facilitating services in the Microsoft Cloud, with what happens to be straight up google action? And what fun things would it do if it is the most successful. If this contract has tasks for enhancements seems a foot in the door is better than one in the pants.
And it is no more illegal to require the use of Microsoft's cloud than it is to require the use of Microsoft's O/s. I dont think it unreasonable to want to keep an environment as uniform as possible, so that those transferring positions within the environment do not have additional learning curves. Just so happens this environment is the entire GS land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cry Baby
Government don't use Google services because of .........PRIVACY INVASION. Google is kind of company which won't mind looking inside your underwear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cry Baby
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cry Baby
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cry Baby
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There Is No Crying In Business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Working with FARS
Does Google meet FARS requirements?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Acquisition_Regulation
People love Google because they deliver software that simply works and has Easter eggs, but Microsoft got in a lot of trouble when they had "Easter eggs" in products in Microsoft Word because of FARS. As a result, they nixed the Easter Eggs.
Google should keep the model they have, including Easter Eggs for Consumer market (We love them) but when it comes to working with Government acquisitions, it's a whole new ball of wax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_eggs_in_Microsoft_products
"Microsoft formally stopped including Easter eggs in its programs as part of its Trustworthy Computing Initiative in 2002"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Working with FARS
the GAO dismissed Google's protest saying that since Google does not have a GSA schedule contract (i.e., what you need to sell to the gov't), it was "not an interested party."
Google isn't even eligible to bid without a GSA schedule contract so it doesn't matter. If they want to play the game they have to get the pieces to even compete.
It would be like me not registering to vote and showing up tomorrow then complaining that they won't let me vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Working with FARS
This is why I think the DoJ vs Microsoft antitrust case was important- Microsoft did such a good job focusing on the consumer market and it's products didn't properly document all the functionality of the software product. Flight simulators and pinball machine functionality weren't in the RFQ. In lieu of a breakup, it's possible that Microsoft responded by creating a group which cleansed the code and removed the Easter eggs prior to making it available for government consumption.
These days, Microsoft products are all sanitized, have no Easter eggs, and that brings us to today where Microsoft can't figure out why people have a hard time liking their products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Similar suit filed in Quebec in the past year
If you can read French:
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-soleil/actualites/justice-et-faits-divers/201003/08/01-4258648 -contrat-sans-appel-doffres-perdu-davance-dit-savoir-faire-linux.php
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-s oleil/actualites/science-et-technologie/201006/03/01-4286630-le-logiciel-libre-remporte-une-victoire -en-cour.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Linux Solution
In fact, with Microsoft as the enterprise software vendor a lot of the expensive software provided is "useless" since the majority of government workers would seldom use it. Even MS Word, which is perhaps the most critical program, is seldom used to its full potential.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google sues government
To distract the media, they keep coming up with these stupid stunts to divert attention from them.
1. Few Months back they pulled some stunts with the Chinese government which backfired.
2. Few weeks ago we had some google cars driving themselves.
3. Few days ago they bought some big spectacular buildings for over 2 billion.
4. Today we are hearing that they are suing the US Government.
Google, cut the crap, innovate and stop stealing software from companies.
I shall prophesy that in the next 10 years Google will be dead. Don't believe me and keep being buoyed by the android delusion.
You will wake up on the other side of midnight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think this was an easy decision for government...
Google has a long ways to go before they have a product which will compete against MS Office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Title Correction
should read
"Google Sues the US Government for Considering Only Microsoft Solutions"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
google sues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
larry ellison?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Allegations that it was for reasons of security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Start Small, Sue Canada
So, Google, please sue Canada.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newsflash: Google wins DOI contract
, Next in line, the J&A for Cisco smartnet has to stop so that we can stop throwing away hard-to-come-by tax-payer dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nobody read the filing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]