Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 1st Nov 2010 23:36 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Google That is without a single shred of doubt the most awesome headline I ever got to put on OSNews. This headline is so awesome I don't even need to write anything else, because it would just detract from the awesomeness. Cue Johnny Guitar, with a lone wanderer riding his horse towards a Mojave sunset, after just having... Wait, where were we? Right. Yes, Google has sued the US Department of the Interior because its Request for Quotation regarding a messaging solution demanded the use of Microsoft software.
E-mail Print r 13   · Read More · 76 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 448120
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by telns on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 00:41 UTC
Member since:

Google's complaint about case studies steers towards hyper-correctness.

It is true that there are no case-studies for BPOS-Federal, which is a new, specially tailored version of BPOS for the US Federal Gov't. But won't it by definition be true for all time, if that is used a disqualifying complaint against the product being purchased by the US Federal Gov't? To belabor the point, BPOS-Federal was created with the intention of selling to exactly one customer: the US Federal Gov't. If the fact that the US Federal Gov't has no history with the product is a disqualification for it acquiring the product, won't that be a disqualification in perpetuity?

That angle is particularly interesting as there seems to be at least one case study of BPOS for a similar size institution as the DOI (~100,000 seats) available:

All that said, I can understand why Google would be irked by the bid solicitation. Only in highly unusual circumstances would anyone want a large contract like this to be awarded to a vendor without a competition. However, it is also possible that BPOS-Federal is the only thing available on the market that does what the DOI wants done. That wouldn't be too surprising, as (see above) it was designed specifically to meet the needs of that particular customer.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hyper-correctness
by lemur2 on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 00:54 in reply to "Hyper-correctness"
lemur2 Member since:

But won't it by definition be true for all time, if that is used a disqualifying complaint against the product being purchased by the US Federal Gov't?

No. In the complaint this fact is used to show that there is no valid reason for specifying BPOS-Federal in particular, and that by the government's own rules other solutions should have been allowed to be proposed, and considered under fair competition.

Edited 2010-11-02 00:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[2]: Hyper-correctness
by telns on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 01:05 in reply to "RE: Hyper-correctness"
telns Member since:

Ah, fair enough.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Hyper-correctness
by tomcat on Thu 4th Nov 2010 20:59 in reply to "RE: Hyper-correctness"
tomcat Member since:

LMAO! lemur2 p0wn3d by BPOS-Federal.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Hyper-correctness
by coreyography on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 01:10 in reply to "Hyper-correctness"
coreyography Member since:

It's easier to let a vendor essentially define the specification for you, than it is to write a good one yourself. Not better, just easier.

Edited 2010-11-02 01:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4