Sign up for a new account or log in here:
also @ TechSpot: Asus' new lineup of Z87 Haswell motherboards revealed
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.
User Comments: 40
Got something to say? Post a comment-
princeton said:
Guest said:PanicX is right, Princeton. You're making a fool of yourself.
Hes right in accusing other members of being racist and sexist? He's lucky I didn't call the mods on that one for gods sake.
If he feels that I'm incorrect then fine. The whole basis about why I don't feel google should be able to do this is that google simply provides an inferior service.
WHA-BAM. Not so foolish now.
-
Saintnsinner said:
I'm very disapointed in you Google. What's next are you going to sue me because I prefer a Windows based Tablet PC?
Not you, the OEM manufacturers for only putting Windows on their tablets (rather than a Google OS). I guess it wouldn't matter anyways since compared to the government, most others are small fry. =p
gwailo247 said:Princeton said:You need to rethink your comments because a comparison needs to be apples to apples.
This is getting heated enough without bringing Apple into this. =)
Possibly the best comment in the thread. =)
edit: Blame the fixed width comment area, but it seems you can only have around 3 nested quotes before it becomes essentially unreadable, so I humbly request those having their 'internetargument' to limit the number of quotes they nest.
-
yRaz said:
Guest said:.WHY DOESN'T OUR GOVERNMENT USE A MAC?? WOW WHAT A THOUGHT, NO VIRUS PROTECTION NEEDED, NO HACKERS, I DON'T THINK..I USE ONE AT WORK, BUT SILLY ME I HAVE A PC AT HOME AND SPEND HUNDREDS ON IT EACH YEAR........WHAT A BRAIN STORM SHOULD I WRITE OBAMA? WOULD IT EVEN MATTER? DEALS ALREADY IN PLACE...
HATS OFF TO YOU GOOGLE!!!!!
TINA CARR, LAKEWOOD, CA.
I think the caps say it all for me, but just in case they don't:
Macs DO have viruses and, let me tell you, if the US government used macs there would suddenly be TONS more of them. We have AV and firewalls that have been tested and debugged for years. I'm sure a PC AV that is made to stop 100 attacks a day is better than a Mac av made to stop 2-3 a day.(i made those numbers up, but you get the point)
How do you spend hundreds on your PC a year? I mean I spends ~$600 a year on my computer, but that is because I'm always upgrading it. I'm sure if I wanted to upgrade a mac as much as my PC(which I can't because of how proprietary they are.) it would cost me MUCH more than that.
You also mentioned Obama. I'm not sure why you mentioned his name, but with the recent assassination I'm sure it is wise to hold your mouth on politics.
-
yRaz said:
I think the caps say it all for me, but just in case they don't:
Heh heh..Good one!
princeton said:He's lucky I didn't call the mods on that one for gods sake.
You actually have to call them?..So they don't just protect people automatically?..
-
mattfrompa said:
As for the article, as long as the government is able to do enough research and write up a descent spec (defining functional,security and support requirements, etc.) they SHOULD be able to bid it out and go with the company with the lowest cost. Microsoft doesn't deserve preferential treatment, and neither does Google. Competition is essential in any market.
-
Hes right in accusing other members of being racist and sexist? He's lucky I didn't call the mods on that one for gods sake.
If he feels that I'm incorrect then fine. The whole basis about why I don't feel google should be able to do this is that google simply provides an inferior service.
WHA-BAM. Not so foolish now.
Call whoever you want, you've apparently decided being offended is preferable to reading comprehension.
If you were actually arguing that Google provides inferior services, then I'd have no complaints about your comments, whether I agreed with them or not. But what you were IN FACT arguing was that the government should be allowed to violate their own contract bid laws and intentionally deny competitive bids that were not supplied by Microsoft. Or how I was looking at it, discriminating contract eligibility against non-microsoft bids.
If it was the case that all policies were followed and Microsoft won the contract legally, there wouldn't even be a news story about it.
-
This is one of the many problems of the US government. They contract everything they do to the first bidder, they pay extremely high amounts and lack any fiscal responsibility. What does the government care? Taxpayers will pay for it.
-
yRaz said:Guest said:
This is one of the many problems of the US government. They contract everything they do to the first bidder, they pay extremely high amounts and lack any fiscal responsibility. What does the government care? Taxpayers will pay for it.
And might I ask, what side is fiscally irresponsible?
-
can someone pls delete this article??? is totally out of order. Soon we're gonna be sue for using Bing instead of Google!
-
maestromasada said:
can someone pls delete this article??? is totally out of order. Soon we're gonna be sue for using Bing instead of Google!
The difference being that google and microsoft essentially switch places when it comes to search engine usage, so your statement does not make much sense. =p
-
To Princeton:
"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."
So you're ok with your tax money being spent with total disrespect for any notion as competition, free market, and so on.
This whole problem is not about the product itself, but about the process of selecting the provider of that product. Which doesn't quite live up to the notion of a democratic society, and frankly smells like ****.
Do you have any guarantee that Google or any other provider for that service won't do the job cheaper? No. Because they weren't even considered.
-
yRaz said:Guest said:
To Princeton:
"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."
So you're ok with your tax money being spent with total disrespect for any notion as competition, free market, and so on.
This whole problem is not about the product itself, but about the process of selecting the provider of that product. Which doesn't quite live up to the notion of a democratic society, and frankly smells like ****.
Do you have any guarantee that Google or any other provider for that service won't do the job cheaper? No. Because they weren't even considered.
your side is the fiscally irresponsible one! I'm glad fox "news" gave you so many talking points. This is assuming you're Tina from CA.
-
princeton said:yRaz said:Guest said:
To Princeton:
"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."
So you're ok with your tax money being spent with total disrespect for any notion as competition, free market, and so on.
This whole problem is not about the product itself, but about the process of selecting the provider of that product. Which doesn't quite live up to the notion of a democratic society, and frankly smells like ****.
Do you have any guarantee that Google or any other provider for that service won't do the job cheaper? No. Because they weren't even considered.
your side is the fiscally irresponsible one! I'm glad fox "news" gave you so many talking points. This is assuming you're Tina from CA.
I lol'd. Also if it is Tina she should know she is a danger to society with her idiocy.
-
AnonymousSurfer said:
I think google is starting to become a real B*TCH when it comes to disputes. Facebook, HTML5 thing, all this other crap is starting to piss me off. They need to go back to their plan as staying in a corner and doing what the public wants them for: surfing the web.
-
US goverment is not a private company.Public owned.See your pay check tax deduction if you have forgotten.Gov can't make us all play fair if they do not.
Most Popular
| Trending | Featured |
Featured on Laptops
Subscribe to TechSpot
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and breaking tech news.