4 ms·

> Oracle also accused Amazon of breaking the rules by hiring two senior DoD staff, Deap Ubhi and Anthony DeMartino, who were involved in the JEDI procurement pr

by snaky 7y ago

> Oracle also accused Amazon of breaking the rules by hiring two senior DoD staff, Deap Ubhi and Anthony DeMartino, who were involved in the JEDI procurement process. Ubhi is described as "lead PM". A third name is redacted in the publicly released filing.

Jtsummers 7y ago
More important is the next paragraph (apparent typo on the name left in): > It is alleged that Amazon failed to notify the DoD that it was offering Udhi, the DoD's lead for the procurement project, a job. AWS has always denied any wrongdoing. If it can be shown that Ubhi influenced the decision before departing for Amazon, then there are some serious legal problems in store for both Ubhi and Amazon.
- consumer451 7y ago
  > If it can be shown that Ubhi influenced the decision before departing for Amazon, then there are some serious legal problems in store for both Ubhi and Amazon. Honest questions coming out of legal ignorance: isn't this just normal m.o. in the USA these days? Isn't that what "revolving door"[0] is all about? Is this really a legal issue for the participants in this scheme at-large? If not, what did the AWS hires do differently that was more egregious? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - javagram 7y ago
    Revolving door is a concept but various bodies have different rules limiting when and how it is acceptable. Oracle is alleging that AWS/DoD violated those rules, now it’s up to the court to decide if they did. Edit: I’m sure that Wikipedia link doesn’t cover the full universe of rules, but it does say: > "Under current law, government officials who make contracting decisions must either wait a year before joining a military contractor or, if they want to switch immediately, must start in an affiliate or division unrelated to their government work. One big loophole is that these restrictions do not apply to many high-level policy makers..., who can join corporations or their boards without waiting." [21]
  - Jtsummers 7y ago
    > "Under current law, government officials who make contracting decisions must either wait a year before joining a military contractor or, if they want to switch immediately, must start in an affiliate or division unrelated to their government work. One big loophole is that these restrictions do not apply to many high-level policy makers..., who can join corporations or their boards without waiting." From your link (didn't bother following it to its source, but it's a correct summary). The President's Cabinet members can freely go back and forth between industry and policymaking positions (well, up to confirmation after nomination which will limit things). But a member of the military/civil service is limited in how quickly they can go to a contractor and in what role they can work.
throwayEngineer 7y ago
So my middle class taxes are going to Amazon development. I don't understand why there is no anti/limited government party in the (modern) United States. The two parties are both advocates for this kind of spending. There doesn't seem to be any advocates for the masses.

by snaky 7y ago

Jtsummers 7y ago

More important is the next paragraph (apparent typo on the name left in): > It is alleged that Amazon failed to notify the DoD that it was offering Udhi, the DoD's lead for the procurement project, a job. AWS has always denied any wrongdoing. If it can be shown that Ubhi influenced the decision before departing for Amazon, then there are some serious legal problems in store for both Ubhi and Amazon.

consumer451 7y ago
> If it can be shown that Ubhi influenced the decision before departing for Amazon, then there are some serious legal problems in store for both Ubhi and Amazon. Honest questions coming out of legal ignorance: isn't this just normal m.o. in the USA these days? Isn't that what "revolving door"[0] is all about? Is this really a legal issue for the participants in this scheme at-large? If not, what did the AWS hires do differently that was more egregious? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- javagram 7y ago
  Revolving door is a concept but various bodies have different rules limiting when and how it is acceptable. Oracle is alleging that AWS/DoD violated those rules, now it’s up to the court to decide if they did. Edit: I’m sure that Wikipedia link doesn’t cover the full universe of rules, but it does say: > "Under current law, government officials who make contracting decisions must either wait a year before joining a military contractor or, if they want to switch immediately, must start in an affiliate or division unrelated to their government work. One big loophole is that these restrictions do not apply to many high-level policy makers..., who can join corporations or their boards without waiting." [21]
- Jtsummers 7y ago
  > "Under current law, government officials who make contracting decisions must either wait a year before joining a military contractor or, if they want to switch immediately, must start in an affiliate or division unrelated to their government work. One big loophole is that these restrictions do not apply to many high-level policy makers..., who can join corporations or their boards without waiting." From your link (didn't bother following it to its source, but it's a correct summary). The President's Cabinet members can freely go back and forth between industry and policymaking positions (well, up to confirmation after nomination which will limit things). But a member of the military/civil service is limited in how quickly they can go to a contractor and in what role they can work.

throwayEngineer 7y ago

So my middle class taxes are going to Amazon development. I don't understand why there is no anti/limited government party in the (modern) United States. The two parties are both advocates for this kind of spending. There doesn't seem to be any advocates for the masses.