
Google Sues The US Government For Only Considering Microsoft Solutions - ssclafani
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101030/23442911657/google-sues-the-us-government-for-only-considering-microsoft-solutions.shtml
======
endtime
>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,"

I don't actually know what the Microsoft Business Productivity Online Suite
is, but if they're already using it for a lot of other stuff, I think it's
pretty understandable to want their email system to integrate with it.

~~~
msbarnett
Nevertheless, an RFQ that shapes its requirements in such a way as to
essentially name the winner before-hand is a serious problem.

~~~
bbarthel
This is actually a perfectly legitimate practice - there are various
regulations that govern these types of single-vendor/single-product requests.
Usually you have to show (based on an analysis of currently available
solutions) that no product except the one named could possibly meet your
requirements.

In this case, it appears that the DOI actually followed those rules and came
to the conclusion that only MS could provide a working solution. Google is
essentially saying in the complaint that

a) Their solution meets the stated requirements and the DOI knew about it.

b) It is unclear if Microsoft's solution even meets all the requirements
(specifically the security requirements since Microsoft is not currently FISMA
compliant and has a bunch of known problems in its exchange server)

therefore the justification for naming Microsoft's solution is invalid and
solutions involving Google's product should have been allowed for
consideration.

Since I didn't actually read the DOI justification (only Google's summary of
it) and I am not familiar enough with the specific regulations that govern
this sort of thing to comment on its validity, I simply wanted to point out
that "naming the winner" in the RFQ is not enough to invalidate it and is not
necessarily a problem if the proper research has been done.

~~~
bshep
IANAL and I didnt read the DOI paper, but as I think you are mostly right.

I think the DOI can require that a solution must be compatible with or have
the same features as Microsoft's solution.

However, they cannot say the solution MUST be the Microsoft product, and I
think that is what Google is arguing.

------
Xuzz
I don't see governments considering more than Microsoft for most things:
desktop OS, office suite, etc.

I would be glad if this changed that, though. There's a potential for quite a
bit of money to be saved.

~~~
cbo
The French have adopted Ubuntu as their primary systems. Stock markets now run
on Linux. So does whitehouse.gov. Obama's campaign servers ran on FreeBSD.

It's not entirely unreasonable to see it changing. Plus, as you said, it would
save the government plenty of money in licensing and support.

~~~
protomyth
Maybe, it will save licensing costs, but it will not save on support costs.
Contracting companies are not going to lessen their support bids for Linux
compared to Windows. I wouldn't be surprised if the bid for support was higher
to compensate for the lesser number of Linux-trained support people. It will
probably be a wash.

~~~
rbanffy
Even if it is, the government would have easier access to and better control
over an open-source stack than it would with Windows. It would also have a
wider possible market because support vendors would not have to get
Microsoft's blessing before providing services.

~~~
protomyth
Actually, the US government probably could get Microsoft to make a change /
add something a lot quicker than it could from the Linux community (money is a
fine leverage). Many support organizations don't exactly get permission from
Microsoft to bid.

~~~
natnat
Red Hat/Novell/Canonical could add/change Linux features just as easily as
Microsoft could add to or change Windows. The Linux community isn't just a
bunch of people who are writing code for the fun of it.

~~~
rbanffy
Not only that, but you can make Red Hat, Novell and Canonical compete against
each other for the best solution.

As much schizophrenic as Microsoft's various divisions are, you can't make the
Xbox division compete with the Office division on which one wins a contract
for adding a feature to the Windows 8 kernel.

------
luffy
Does Google actually have a claim under the Tucker Act? Some quick searching
limits claimants to those who have an actual contract.

<http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/tucker_act>

EDIT: Note that in general sovereign immunity would preclude a contract suit
against the government. The Tucker Act permits several types of claims against
the US Gov't.

~~~
jeffreymcmanus
Sovereign immunity prevents certain types of lawsuits against the government.
It doesn't mean you can't sue the government ever.

------
daviding
The news article is a bit light on all the details. I did some work for some
of the people bidding and probably the best summary of who 'won' is in the
GSA's (who supply the IT infrastructure to other govt agencies) press release
found here:

<http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/193441>

Note that a lot of <http://apps.gov> is based around vendors built on Amazon
EC2/S3 and Salesforce force.com platform. Microsoft is not a dominate player
in government IT, in fact I probably see far more tax money going to IBM
and/or Oracle every year if it makes anyone feel better. /s :)

It is true in the area of office apps that Google have an case here, but
another way to look at this is that Google are mighty sore for having gone
through all that security accreditation (FISMA) without winning more business.
They put a lot of effort into the RFQ (as did Amazon, who did well out of
this)

------
codyguy
Could I also please sue various world governments for not considering me ;)

------
jeffreymcmanus
This is a thick-headed publicity ploy on Google's part. Hate on Microsoft all
you want, but Google Apps are not even close to Office in terms of
functionality.

~~~
dexen
Less functionality is an advantage for most tasks at hand.

The functionality overload in recent versions of MS Offfice was so huge it
made Microsoft develop entirely new user interface (`Ribbon') as the
traditional pull-down menus weren't able to cope with it anymore.

Are you sure you need Kate the Average Secretary to toy around with countless
functions? Will that add to the bottomline?

~~~
jeffreymcmanus
Less functionality can be an advantage if all you ever do is create new
documents (i.e., you're a developer or a writer).

It's a huge disadvantage if all you ever do is edit existing documents (i.e.,
you work in government).

------
templaedhel
This is great in the long run, but seems to be loose loose for google. Either
they loose, pay for legal fees, and the goverment continues buying Microsoft,
or they win, get a payout from microsoft, and still don't get business,
because Microsoft probably won't buy enterprise software from the company they
were just sued by.

~~~
btilly
Gah. I thought I was used to the whole "loose" vs "lose" mix up that so many
do.

But seeing it 3 times in rapid succession feels like fingernails on the
blackboard.

------
torial
I would love a different way of handling Government RFQs: If your company
engages in income shifting to avoid paying taxes, you are ineligible for
government contracts.

~~~
chopsueyar
I was thinking along the same lines.

However, I assume Microsoft behaves in a similar manner.

~~~
tallanvor
I'm fairly sure they do - as do pretty much all large corporations. That
doesn't make it right, of course.

------
misterm
This is a frivolous lawsuit. There is no reason anyone would sue a private
company for not using their software.

------
known
Well that's how closed source software makes money.

------
known
I think a MS employee wrote this RFQ.

------
cedisdead
am i the first one who sees the hidden message FOCMS in this title ?

------
stretchwithme
huh? Potential customer not into you? Time to sue him.

------
GrandMasterBirt
I hope Google wins. I don't care if the government uses Google or not, but
this unreasonable entrenchment of Microsoft is ridiculous.

~~~
nightlifelover
Like what other solution?

~~~
thwarted
Because one of the largest contract purchasers, the government, limits their
options to one solution, the ecosystem is really small for alternatives. Once
this is opened up, there is increased potential for more options to arise.
Having Microsoft being the only option is artificially retarding innovation
and options.

