9 ms·
Google Sues The US Government For Only Considering Microsoft Solutions
- Xuzz 16y agoI 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.
- lenni 16y agoAlso in this case the "desktop" would then be just any old client which could easily be upgraded/swapped out and something other than Windows could be used as OS.
- sudont 16y agoA lot of other-than-US governments are adopting linux and FOSS, and the Obama administration's been fairly friendly with Mac desktops.
- cbo 16y agoThe 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 16y agoMaybe, 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 16y agoEven 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 16y agoActually, 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 16y agoRed 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 16y agoNot 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.
- protomyth 16y agoFor better or worse, the US government has a lot easier time dealing with a central point of control and owner's of products are their institutional experience. Also, I gotta wonder how a change that was not popular would work if made by one of the distribution companies.
- spot 16y agoThe competition here isn't Linux, it's Google's cloud docs offering. Google does offer support and it's much cheaper than Microsoft.
- luffy 16y agoDoes 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 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 16y agoSovereign immunity prevents certain types of lawsuits against the government. It doesn't mean you can't sue the government ever.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- eru 16y agoThis argument would be more compelling if Microsoft sold open source software.
- kno 16y agoI don’t think the government is big fan of open source either. They mostly worry about support.
- eru 16y agoIndeed. I was only talking about the original comment's argument, not about the reality of government.
- daviding 16y agoThey are warming to it, especially when it is offered by solid companies who can provide the support. The 'services not licenses' business model of a lot of OS suppliers actually works quite well with Govt IT. The downside is that the existing players are huge (due to large contracts) and hard to dislodge. It is getting better though (I spent some time building http://apps.gov http://apps.gov if you want a sort of overview of the type of 'free market' that is trying to be provided to federal agencies here).
- protomyth 16y agoTechnically, to the US government Windows is open source.
- codyguy 16y agoCould I also please sue various world governments for not considering me ;)
- GrandMasterBirt 16y agoI hope Google wins. I don't care if the government uses Google or not, but this unreasonable entrenchment of Microsoft is ridiculous.
- nightlifelover 16y agoLike what other solution?
- thwarted 16y agoBecause 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.
- kiba 16y agoGovernments are going to pick winners and losers. Big deal. IF you don't like that, just get rid of the government agencies.
- endtime 16y ago>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 16y agoNevertheless, an RFQ that shapes its requirements in such a way as to essentially name the winner before-hand is a serious problem.
- tzs 16y agoAre they naming the winner before-hand? A quick Google search seems to indicate that there are companies besides Microsoft that sell Microsoft BPOS. Presumably those companies can bid on this job.
- msbarnett 16y agoBPOS is a Microsoft-hosted cloud service. There are various "Qualified Microsoft partners" who will essentially act as consultants to asses your needs and point you at the right Microsoft plan, but the per-user-month pricing is the same whether or not you go through any of those or direct to Microsoft, and the fee is always paid to Microsoft. The business model for the partners is just a time-and-materials on the consulting bit; they aren't true vendors who can compete on service price. Their requirement is a single-vendor, single-source service that can only be obtained from Microsoft. That's naming the winner before you hold the contest.
- rakkhi 16y agoAgreed. I'm really supprised that language like that made it through to the final RFP. I have been involved with RFPs at government organizations and legal is always supper careful about writing requirements that potentially restrict competition exactly because of risks like this. It is also just poor requirements writing, you should never specify the solution in the requirements, you are just cutting off so many possibilities
- daviding 16y agoThe 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 http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/193441 Note that a lot of http://apps.gov 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)
- templaedhel 16y agoThis 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 16y agoGah. 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 16y agoI 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 16y agoI was thinking along the same lines. However, I assume Microsoft behaves in a similar manner.
- tallanvor 16y agoI'm fairly sure they do - as do pretty much all large corporations. That doesn't make it right, of course.
- stretchwithme 16y agohuh? Potential customer not into you? Time to sue him.
- known 16y agoWell that's how closed source software makes money.
- jeffreymcmanus 16y agoThis 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 16y agoLess 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 16y agoLess 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).
- known 16y agoI think a MS employee wrote this RFQ.
- cedisdead 16y agoam i the first one who sees the hidden message FOCMS in this title ?
- misterm 16y agoThis is a frivolous lawsuit. There is no reason anyone would sue a private company for not using their software.