Windows 7 Forums

Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: Google sues feds over Microsoft-centric bidding requirement

02 Nov 2010   #21
pparks1

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Barman58 View Post
Would just like to state for the record that Sevenforums is not a Microsoft forum, but an independent forum dedicated to A Microsoft product , and related hardware and software
I'm sorry, I know this isn't a Microsoft run/sponsored forum. My point was that it's for users of Microsoft products mainly. While I don't universally love Google and everything they do....I don't find their business practices any more appaulling than Microsoft's practices over the years.


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
02 Nov 2010   #22
Lordbob75

Windows 7 Ultimate x64, Mint 9
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Rei Tumult View Post
It doesn't meet their requirements, they asked for specific tailored solution--the Microsoft suite, Google offered something completely different.

Switching systems can be very expensive, esp. if the system they're switching to is new and unfamiliar to its staff.
I would like to point out that they didn't ask MS to make something just for them, MS already had the only thing that met the requirements.
I do agree that switching is expensive, I get that.

I am arguing that this is anti-competitive and (technically) could be called an illegal monopoly (though I don't know how government contracts work).

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Barman58 View Post
Would just like to state for the record that Sevenforums is not a Microsoft forum, but an independent forum dedicated to A Microsoft product , and related hardware and software
I'm sorry, I know this isn't a Microsoft run/sponsored forum. My point was that it's for users of Microsoft products mainly. While I don't universally love Google and everything they do....I don't find their business practices any more appaulling than Microsoft's practices over the years.
Don't forget Apple's, and... Pretty much everyone.

~Lordbob
My System SpecsSystem Spec
02 Nov 2010   #23
Trucidation

 

I don't get it.

My company uses product X. We give out quotes/proposals/tenders with the stipulation that vendors also use product X-based solutions. Then a vendor selling product Y comes along and pitches a fit.

WTF?

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Rei Tumult View Post
Let me see if I understood this right...

The client-- all of its staff are used to and its systems operate on X product, in this case Microsoft Office. They advertise a project only for a interested company to threaten them, saying "Our software is MUCH better than what you're asking us to work with. Hire us now, rip out your preferred product and re-train all of your staff... or we'll sue you."

People advertising for work to be done should not be faced with such attacks. Either the company should be interested in the project or not at all.

Google's do no evil is just bull, this article reminds me why I don't use their services anymore.
Exactly.

Is Google is willing to shoulder all the costs for retraining staff, installing their software, and handling the system transition - all non-trivial tasks as anyone with a modicum of experience in these things should know especially if you work in the manufacturing industry? Yeah, let's toss out over a decades' worth of tried and tested procedures and go along with something else.

Google can go suck a big fat one.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

04 Nov 2010   #24
Layback Bear

Windows 7 Pro. 64/SP-1
 
 

From post #1.
The only sticking point is that, while Google appears to have been jockeying for DOI viability since at least June 2009, it did not obtain accreditation from the General Services Administration or Federal Information Security Management Act certification until July 2010. Without them, it couldn't qualify as "interested party" in the contract. But those uncertified times are distant in Google's memory, and now it's out for federal blood.
________________________________________________
Looks to me Google has not been putting forth a effort for the proper certification for a long time but they still want to play the game. Why should the tax payer have to pay for a complete revamp of the system so Google can install their little thing in there. Next thing that comes to mind is; why would Microsoft allow Google to tamper with their programs so they could install Google programs that have not been certified by General Services Administration or Federal Information Security Management Act? That just might remove Microsoft from the certified list. When you sell something to our government to play by their rules.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
05 Nov 2010   #25
Bootz

Vista Business x64
 
 

I would like to point out that people could easily get by day to day without Google as a company. They make not a single important service or product that people or businesses couldnt live without.

Microsoft on the other hand has a world wide effect on business and personal use.

This is why i think Microsoft is on a whole nother level as far as success goes compared to Google.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
05 Nov 2010   #26
Everlong

 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Bootz View Post
I would like to point out that people could easily get by day to day without Google as a company. They make not a single important service or product that people or businesses couldnt live without.

Microsoft on the other hand has a world wide effect on business and personal use.

This is why i think Microsoft is on a whole nother level as far as success goes compared to Google.
The problem with Google is they just want to be where Microsoft is.

Or they're just trying to find someone to sue as they're being sued left, right and centre.

I love Google, and use quite a lot of their products, but no business is perfect. Nvidia, Intel, Microsoft etc all have their own flaws.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
06 Nov 2010   #27
logicearth

Windows 10 Pro (x64)
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Lordbob75 View Post
I am arguing that this is anti-competitive and (technically) could be called an illegal monopoly (though I don't know how government contracts work).
It is not anti-competitive. If a company/organisation requires or wants Product X and the product is a requirement in the Request for Proposal/Quotes that is there right. That does not make it anti-competitive. It would be anti-competitive if the maker of the product was forcing only there product to only ever be used.

It is anti-competitive because I chose to run Windows on my home computers? Do you think a business or an organisation's choices is some how different to individual's choices?
My System SpecsSystem Spec
06 Nov 2010   #28
Lordbob75

Windows 7 Ultimate x64, Mint 9
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by logicearth View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Lordbob75 View Post
I am arguing that this is anti-competitive and (technically) could be called an illegal monopoly (though I don't know how government contracts work).
It is not anti-competitive. If a company/organisation requires or wants Product X and the product is a requirement in the Request for Proposal/Quotes that is there right. That does not make it anti-competitive. It would be anti-competitive if the maker of the product was forcing only there product to only ever be used.
Fair enough.

~Lordbob
My System SpecsSystem Spec
06 Nov 2010   #29
Horatio

Windows 7 Home Premium
 
 

Several points, if I may:-

1. It is my understanding that this contract is for a "new" service - Cloud services, in fact? As such, I doubt that the arguments re. training, familiarity with current products, etc. apply much.

2. Training costs will be a part of the cost whoever is chosen. Also, one imagines that such costs are a part of the price?

3. I noted (reading the thread) that people thought that Google were/are not qualified to be bidding. If that were the case, I doubt that Google would be contesting the outcome of the contract award.

4. Also, most importantly, and to me most disturbing, is that there seems to be here an attitude from people that the procurer can simply require from a bidder the product of a specific supplier.
I'm sure that's true of private individuals/companies, although perhaps foolish.
i.e. a company buying a fleet of cars would do better to put out a specification for the cars and invite bids from various manufacturers, rather than say "We love Ford - please tell us your price"!

In the case of the Public Sector, I suspect that to actually state "Ford" would be illegal, and that this is what Google are now contesting.
Over the years, it has become increasingly common for I.T. tenders to go out that simply say "As Microsoft Word", or "With an Operating System that works just like Windows XP".
This is not good tendering practice!
It's akin to saying "Just like the Ford model XYZ".
What should happen is that a specification goes out, along the lines of:-

- Seating for n pasengers
- mpg at least xx urban, yy overall
- maintenance interval at least y miles or z months
- brakes to be....
- Air conditioning
- etc.

None of this seems to have happened, and hence the Google complaint.

I suspect that the law re. tendering is there, and I suspect that Google thinks that it has been ignored.
If so, they are quite right to protest, and (imo) Americans amongst you should be applauding them. If after proper investigation it transpires that the proper procedure was followed, or that the MS offer was the best, fine.

Remember, it's your tax dollars. For my own part, and Atlantic's width away from you, it's not material which of two American companies gets your tax dollars.
However, I'm convinced that if you ensure "proper" tendering and thereby competition in bidding for contracts of this sort, you will end up seeing better value for those dollars, whoever gets the contracts
My System SpecsSystem Spec
06 Nov 2010   #30
Tepid

Win 7 Ultimate 32bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Lordbob75 View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by logicearth View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Lordbob75 View Post
I am arguing that this is anti-competitive and (technically) could be called an illegal monopoly (though I don't know how government contracts work).
It is not anti-competitive. If a company/organisation requires or wants Product X and the product is a requirement in the Request for Proposal/Quotes that is there right. That does not make it anti-competitive. It would be anti-competitive if the maker of the product was forcing only there product to only ever be used.
Fair enough.

~Lordbob
The real problem here is Google. They want to force their way into something that may not have even been open to them and crying foul.

Google has the problem, not the contract. Even if it is our gov't. If a contract runs out, but a term is agreed upon for renewal, it's ok. Google is saying it isn't because they don't get a piece of the action.

That is just like saying to Company X, we are suing you for not using our product, or giving us the opertunity to present our product to you. "But we aren't interested." ,, "We don't care, we are suing you anyway for the right to make you let us present it to you, and if you still say no, we will sue you for not wanting to use it."

THat IS Called TOTALITARINISM.

F Google.

In this case, The systems rely on one system. That is also like saying Google could get into the Server Hardware Business. Then what? Our Tax dollars will have to go into buying their hardware too? Otherwise it is anti-competitive? "We are suing you cause you are using old hardware and we want to offer you ours." But we don't need it." We (Google) don't care."

Maybe the sounds a little extreme, but to a degree, it's not. I may have over-exadurated to a degree. But where will it end?
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 Google sues feds over Microsoft-centric bidding requirement




Thread Tools




Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
Motorola sues Microsoft
Motorola sues Microsoft, alleges patent infringement.. Source And in a related article from yesterday Source
News
Oracle sues Google over Java
Well, all I have to say is...RIP Java and RIP Oracle. After all the years that Sun spent building goodwill, Oracle has destroyed that in one fell swoop. Someone will step up and build something better for Google/Android and, although that will be a rough transition, it will develop into...
News
Woman Sues Google over Bad Directions
All I can say is... 1) I knew this would happen eventually. 2) I'm actually surprised it didn't happen sooner. Woman Sues Google over Bad Directions Update: It Was Dark - PCWorld "Crazy world ain't it?"
Chillout Room
Woman Sues Google Over Utah Walking Directions
Woman Sues Google Over Utah Walking Directions : NPR read the full article, it is a hoot, im just going to pick out some of my favourite bits
Chillout Room


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 14:46.
Twitter Facebook Google+ Seven Forums iOS App Seven Forums Android App