Google stops US government from choosing Microsoft

Emil

Posts: 152   +0
Staff

Two months ago, Google sued the US government because it reportedly only considered Microsoft for a five-year e-mail services contract worth between $49 million and $59 million. Now, Judge Susan Braden of the US Court of Federal Claims in Washington has ordered the Interior Department to rethink its plan for its 88,000 employees and granted Google's wish for a preliminary injunction to stop Microsoft from winning the deal and receiving the contract on January 25, 2011.

In her ruling, the judge said Google showed that the Interior Department may have violated rules for competition in contracting and sent the matter back for reconsideration. The court, of course, made no judgment on whether Microsoft was the right supplier for the contract.

"Without a preliminary injunction, the award will put into motion the final migration of Interior's e-mail system, achieve 'organizational lock-in' for Microsoft, and cost Google the opportunity to compete," the judge wrote in a 27-page decision. "The court ... discerns no basis in the present administrative record to support Google allegations of bad faith. Likewise, the court discerns no improper conduct by Microsoft, the actions of which show only competitive zeal and interest in customer satisfaction."

"As a proponent of open competition on the Internet and in the technology sector in general, we're pleased with the court's decision," a Google spokesperson said in a statement. Google's original argument was that the government's proposed terms were unfairly designed against it, arguing that the Interior Department only considered proposals based on Microsoft technology.

Permalink to story.

 
This is ridiculous. Nobody should be "required" to consider a certain company. If I own a business and I only consider MS not google, well tough **** google. They should have no right to interfere with that.
 
I think the issue is that it was the government which was only considering MS. What private businesses do is of no matter to the public sphere.
 
I think the issue is that it was the government which was only considering MS. What private businesses do is of no matter to the public sphere.

It still isn't their business. What I want to know is what did google say to the courts? Maybe something like...


"NOOOO! OUR MONOPOLY IS JUST AS GOOD AS THEIR MONOPOLY! HOW DARE YOU IGNORE US!"
 
Here's how it's going to go:

"Ok Google, we'll consider you (*5 second pause*). Ok Google, we considered you and decided to stick to Microsoft."
 
The U.S. government has bid contract rules it is SUPPOSED to follow.

If this particularly government entity followed the rules, then Google would have been considered. Since they were not, Google has every right to whine and b$%#.

Google didn't make the government's rules... They are merely trying to use them to their advantage just like any company would.
 
This is one of the most stupid things I have read about this year. (year is young, lets see what other crap happens)
 
gobbybobby said:
This is one of the most stupid things I have read about this year. (year is young, lets see what other crap happens)

So I guess you didn't read about how the hHD 6990 is going to crush anything nvidia will make :p
 
Rick said:
The U.S. government has bid contract rules it is SUPPOSED to follow.

If this particularly government entity followed the rules, then Google would have been considered. Since they were not, Google has every right to whine and b$%#.

Google didn't make the government's rules... They are merely trying to use them to their advantage just like any company would.

I'm with you on that. Bidding is a long cherished part of sucking on the taxpayers teat, has to be followed even if it a sham. Most gov't contracts are probably decided ahead of time anyway, probably why the company in question paid to elect given official.
 
Princeton said:
gobbybobby said:
This is one of the most stupid things I have read about this year. (year is young, lets see what other crap happens)

So I guess you didn't read about how the hHD 6990 is going to crush anything nvidia will make :p

no not read that! lol.
 
The Usual US problems. An american dream.

I think lotus notes will win :p
 
Princeton said:
This is ridiculous. Nobody should be "required" to consider a certain company. If I own a business and I only consider MS not google, well tough **** google. They should have no right to interfere with that.
Tell that to the EU Regulatory Board. They forced Microsoft to Include a Ballot system when selling copies of Windows in Europe to allow people to choose their web browser right after installation.

Google's mission statement is essentially "do no evil", but "all's fair in love and war" when it comes to other companies/corporations. =p

Guest said:
I think lotus notes will win :p
I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry about this comment. =p
 
Princeton said:
This is ridiculous. Nobody should be "required" to consider a certain company. If I own a business and I only consider MS not google, well tough **** google. They should have no right to interfere with that.

It's like you're an advocate for discrimination. Does your hypothetical company also restrict employment by gender and race?
 
Princeton said:
gobbybobby said:
This is one of the most stupid things I have read about this year. (year is young, lets see what other crap happens)

So I guess you didn't read about how the hHD 6990 is going to crush anything nvidia will make :p

Actually wasn't it the 6970 that was going to CRUSH the GTX580? Now it's but but but the 6990!
 
Ehm, how can some people just not understand :D? Of course Google _does_ have a right to complain about this because this is about the US citizens too, for chrissake.

"They should have no right right to interfere with that". You become a corporation and then come back to tell that at my face when you just lost a competition to the rival company without even being included in the decision making.

And the point is not about choosing one over the other (which might, of course, happen for Microsoft's advantage in the end anyway) - it's about choosing one without even thinking of the other.
 
People seem to be confusing business with government agencies, again.

If you have a private business, you're free to consider whatever product you want from whoever you want. The responsibility for that decision rests solely on you.

With a publicly-owned business, stockholders (the actual owners of the company) have a say on major deals (such as this) that would affect the entire company. Continually blowing them off is an easy way to get yourself... well... "removed" from your position.

Government is somewhat the same thing. The people are essentially the stockholders, and because most people have the attention span of a hamster, certain rules get put up to safeguard the public interest. Competition is one of those interests, and just handing off the contract to Microsoft despite other companies having viable e-mail offerings runs contrary to those interests.

You can argue back and forth over comments and forums as to whether Microsoft would actually provide better service and for a reasonable price point, but that's exactly what the whole deliberation and bidding process is supposed to encompass. All of which apparently didn't happen.
 
sarcasm said:
Princeton said:
gobbybobby said:
This is one of the most stupid things I have read about this year. (year is young, lets see what other crap happens)

So I guess you didn't read about how the hHD 6990 is going to crush anything nvidia will make :p

Actually wasn't it the 6970 that was going to CRUSH the GTX580? Now it's but but but the 6990!

A dual gpu beating a single gpu? That's totally fair. In case you can't tell what I'm doing just check what your username.
 
PanicX said:
Princeton said:
This is ridiculous. Nobody should be "required" to consider a certain company. If I own a business and I only consider MS not google, well tough **** google. They should have no right to interfere with that.

It's like you're an advocate for discrimination. Does your hypothetical company also restrict employment by gender and race?

That's ethically wrong, this isn't. You need to rethink your comments because a comparison needs to be apples to apples. Also I find you accusing me of being sexist and racist EXTREMELY offensive and inappropriate, thanks so much.
 
Princeton said:
PanicX said:
Princeton said:
This is ridiculous. Nobody should be "required" to consider a certain company. If I own a business and I only consider MS not google, well tough **** google. They should have no right to interfere with that.

It's like you're an advocate for discrimination. Does your hypothetical company also restrict employment by gender and race?

That's ethically wrong, this isn't. You need to rethink your comments because a comparison needs to be apples to apples. Also I find you accusing me of being sexist and racist EXTREMELY offensive and inappropriate, thanks so much.

I'm thinking what you consider ethically wrong is a shaky ground of inconsistency. I'm glad you find sexism and racism offensive, we have common ground there, although, I in no way accused you of these things. I specifically mentioned forms of discrimination, or "unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice", which your "I only consider MS not google, well tough **** google." would also stand to this definition. I would expect that the concept is easier to recognize as morally lacking when contrasted against other forms of discrimination, but maybe I put too much thought into my comments for your liking.
 
Maybe the point here is that Google DOES NOT have a product that can provide the same level of services that Microsoft can (i.e. Exchange)?

Sure Google has an email service, but that's cloud-based. This is the government fer cryin' out loud. Email has to be on a secure server/site.. even local.

Now if Google can provide them with an enterprise GMail locally on-site, then sure, bring in Google.

But as it is, Microsoft is leading this market segment, hence they won the contract.

Or am I going the wrong way here?
 
The bidding process for providing goods and services to government is the correct way to go but, as a side note, the process can be so onerous that some otherwise worthy companies do not bother to bid, particularly if the amount of money involved is relatively small. A bid is not just a sheet of paper with a few figures on it. It is small book consisting of the response to the proposal (which itself is a small book), the company's qualifications, the individuals involved and their backgrounds and qualifications, legal requirements such as company non-discrimination policies, and a host of other requirements. It is bureaucracy at its finest.

I once wrote a request for proposals (RFP) on behalf of my city department and received no bids. When I asked one of the potential companies why they did not bid, they said they didn't have the resources to respond to the complexities of just the standard provisions (boilerplate) of the RFP much less the main point of the proposal.
 
If a Judge thought it was out of order...Then it's out of order. Laws the law.

I agree with Google challanging the government.
 
Back