Oregon's case is that Oracle claimed their products worked together and could be merely configured to suit +95% of the state's requirements. That proved to be u

Oregon's case is that Oracle claimed their products worked together and could be merely configured to suit +95% of the state's requirements. That proved to be untrue. (It always does with COTS software, but it's the siren's call.) On top of that, OCS was incompentent. It's not a staff-aug vs. fixed fee case (and there are many other commercial models in SI land) -- Oregon is alleging straight up fraud and a RICO case.