Google sues US government for only considering Microsoft

Emil

Posts: 152   +0
Google has filed a suit against the United States government for only considering Microsoft solutions when looking at options to improve their messaging functionality, according to TechDirt. Google Apps was not on the government's table and the search giant is arguing that restricting the Request for Quotation (RFQ), a document asking companies to design a solution and quote a price, to Microsoft is "unduly restrictive of competition."

Read the whole story
 

frodough

Posts: 90   +0
i thought when big companies dont get what they want they simply throw money at it or throw money at lobbyists to make it better
 

hassaan

Posts: 90   +0
Despite the image, from the article it looks that the bid was actually about email systems. And if you compare MS Exchange to Gmail, MS is a failure feature-wise.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,065   +4,868
"Google is a proponent of open competition on the Internet and in the technology sector in general," a Google spokesperson said in a statement. "Here, a fair and open process could save US taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and result in better services. We're asking the Department of Interior to allow for a true competition when selecting its technology providers."
What exactly would a court filing look like for something like this; "our monopoly's better than their monopoly"? :rolleyes:

Or maybe, "we're pissed because we didn't think of stifling competition first"?
 

Archean

Posts: 5,631   +91
Despite the image, from the article it looks that the bid was actually about email systems. And if you compare MS Exchange to Gmail, MS is a failure feature-wise.
You are comparing oranges with apples here, gmail is pretty much irrelevant on most corporate networks; so next time make a comment which make some logical sense.

What exactly would a court filing look like for something like this; "our monopoly's better than their monopoly"?
Probably, or it will be something like this 'give us all the information you have, so we can put it in something cloudy (allowing anyone with brains and enough time to crack and get all info what they want) ........ and it will be (un)safe in our hands.

Also, I think generally (corporate / governments) buyers tends to tilt towards vendors/suppliers who have already worked with them or provided them services earlier on, so in my view the decision by US Govt (involved department/agency) make sense.

On the other hand, I think it will be good contest as taking things to court won't bother MS much as that is where they've spent most of their time in last few years. So, perhaps, soon we may see something filed against google just to drain its resource, as obviously google doesn't have as much cash reserves as does MS.
 

flocka

Posts: 40   +0
Take away Outlook from users in the governmet and you will have another civil war.
every contract i've worked on for DOD, DOE, DOT, Microsoft Exchange server Requires at least a %98.00 availability rate to its users or that company is going to blow a HUGE SLA.
 

Xero07

Posts: 101   +3
Questions:
How do you argue someone didn't consider something? how much debate over something must there be before something is considered to have been considered?
 

Archean

Posts: 5,631   +91
Well the real question is ..... why would someone create a mess by deploying something new in their infrastructure, which may not work with the existing systems, hence wastage of time and money. Every update or new implementation in such environment requires lots of planning, test runs etc., and ultimately the cost effectiveness along with ease of deployment. Frankly, I've done this a lot of times during my days as head of IT department for my employer. Being a dictator can have their plus sides .... when you need them ;)
 
G

Guest

I'm going to sue every retail store in the country for not considering selling my product.
 

spyx

Posts: 57   +0
Hmmmmm, considering the one who is suing i would say the Goverment might lose this one :) ....but it does seem like a reasonable thing to do, I hope they dont go overboard....
 

sMILEY4ever

Posts: 157   +0
captaincranky said:
"Google is a proponent of open competition on the Internet and in the technology sector in general," a Google spokesperson said in a statement. "Here, a fair and open process could save US taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and result in better services. We're asking the Department of Interior to allow for a true competition when selecting its technology providers."
What exactly would a court filing look like for something like this; "our monopoly's better than their monopoly"? :rolleyes:

Or maybe, "we're pissed because we didn't think of stifling competition first"?
I agree. No matter which one is right, they'll both remain strong.
 

treeski

Posts: 1,006   +248
...Redmond offered two things that Mountain View didn't: Unified Mail/Messaging, and "enhanced security."
If there is something Google didn't offer that was required, I don't see how there is any potential argument.
 
G

Guest

DOI had cited security reasons in regard to choosing Microsoft over Google, yet
Google has passed the government's FISMA security certification while Microsoft has not.

Unless you've lived under a rock for the past decade , you know that
as relates to security , giving users Microsoft products is akin to
giving a drowning man a cement life vest.

The law requires competitive bidding, and tailoring a RFP to a specific and in this case deficient
vendor is a violation of that law. Google is correct to sue, and indeed should win that suit with ease.
 

EDO219

Posts: 212   +0
I find it highly unlikely that Google will win this lawsuit, but if they do, then what exactly would be the legal precedent that this would set? Could companies within the private sectors sue potential partners for not properly considering their products and services, or would such a precedent only apply to the public sectors?
 

pheonixnexus

Posts: 17   +1
the US should have contacted everyone (Microsoft and Google) who makes the product (mail service in this case) get a description of what the have or can make and price quote. choose one based on price, how good it is and if it meets their requirements.

In other words the government is required BY LAW to give companies a chance to offer products and then select the best for the price

from what the article say it seem Google feels it wasn't considered fairly and is suing for money it could have gotten from the contract. although the article also mentions Google didn't have a "GSA schedule contract" apparently something they consider necessary to sell to the US Government.

Google just might have enough grounds to sue
 

IAMTHESTIG

Posts: 1,868   +900
I work for a state government agency... and we use a lot of Microsoft products, including Exchange. We don't even want to consider using an web-based e-mail solution hosted by a company. Information security is high priority in government, and having your entire email communication system hosted by a company is not considered a safe option. The government would not have control over its data, Google would... That would mean there is the potential of someone hacking, or even more likely a google employee or employee of one of their data centers accessing government e-mails.

Now if google could offer their service in a stand-alone software package that could be installed and controlled on government hardware, in a government datacenter, then I could see the potential of google being considered.
 

Recipe7

Posts: 143   +5
Keeping their data strictly on Microsoft really narrows their capability to promote safety and security of their information. It's best they should outsource and look for companies that have a good track record of safeguarding information. From the way I see it, the most important information is on hardcopy, so there shouldn't be toooo much risk.