Slashdot Mirror
Diebold Sues Massachusetts for "Wrongful Purchase"
elBart0 writes "Diebold has decided to sue the commonwealth of Massachusetts for choosing a competitor to provide voting machines for the disabled. Diebold wants to force the state to stop using the machines immediately, despite the upcoming municipal elections in many towns. The commonwealth chose the competitor based on an open process that included disabled groups. Diebold executives appeared confused when encountering election officials who made an intelligent choice."
There isn't one. To save others the trouble, here's the closest thing to a reason they give:
I'm a little surprised they think they can sue just based on a gut feeling and expect to get away with it, but then again, it is Diebold. They seem to get away with just about anything.
RTFA. Diebold isn't claiming corruption. They are saying that Massachusetts made a mistake. They are honestly claiming that in a fair competition, there is no way anyone could have possibly picked AutoMARK, and that the people who made the choice were simply wrong and should be forced to pick them. Nothing about corruption at all. In fact, they specifically say it isn't about corruption.
If it were as you say, it would almost make sense.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I think they are alleging that there is a statute which says that the state must "pick the best" product, and that the government failed to do "due diligence" in selecting the product.
Which, of course, is totally ridiculous.
You, me, and any other private-sector entity do not have to explain our whims and caprices when (not) buying something (which may, actually, be unfortunate) to any one other than, perhaps, family members or stock-holders. The government, however, is legally obliged to pick the best -- all of us are the stock-holders...
Knowing the policies and the corruption levels of Taxachusetts, Diebold may well be right suspecting something foul...
Way to counter bias. It's clear you did not even read the article, which says:
Weisberg said the company is not alleging any improprieties by the secretary of state's office. Instead, it is saying the office acted in good faith but made a mistake in the selection.
Diebold is alleging that they are clearly the best and therefore must always be picked. They are saying that the judge should award them the contract since the government made a mistake and picked a company other than theirs, which is the best. The government explained that the device they picked was reported as easier to use by disabled people and had some features which the Diebold machine lacks.
This suit was deliberately filed on the day of an election in which the machines would be used. Its very premise is frightening; according to Diebold they must be the only electronic voting machine manufacturer and whenever any other manufacturer is picked by a government entity that entity must be ordered by a judge to go with Diebold instead. It represents an attempt by a corporation to subvert the democratic process, which makes the fact they are a voting machine manufacturer even more frightening. In any case, this kind of thing cannot be allowed. Companies should not be able to sue the government every time they lose a bid for a contract. That will just create chaos and we will get even less accomplished through the government than we already do.
People in government agencies occasionally select vendors on preference over criteria. Some are just a bit more creative about it in writing up the criteria so that only a single vendor can truly meet the criteria. For example, when I was a contractor to Prince George's County Maryland, I was asked to get quotes for the purchase of a Sun server and RAID. I had to provide at least three price quotes to the purchasing department. The CTO for the county (at the time...think she's in Jacksonville Florida now...unless of course she was removed from there) basically told me to ensure that Timebridge Technologies (reseller of Sun equipment) was the lowest price. I had to exclude two other companies prices when I submitted the purchase request. Granted that this isn't a major purchase like in the article but it can happen pretty easily. Oh, another interesting decision that was made before I worked at the county was the selection of their e911 system from Tiburon. The system they provided wasn't really adequately scaled for the county's size but I heard they were selected because of close ties between some of the county emergency management and the company's management.
Believe it or not, I have read some very good summaries in the past that don't end with some lame attempt at humor. At least for me, those personal comments at the end wind up ruining the article because they put a pre-conceived idea in my head.
Give me a link, give me a summary of the link, and if you have a comment leave it with the rest of them.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Given the timing of their lawsuit, wouldn't the Doctrine of Laches apply? They could have filed suit well in advance of an actual election day.
Laches
n. the legal doctrine that a legal right or claim will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the adverse party (hurt the opponent) as a sort of "legal ambush." Examples: a) knowing the correct property line, Oliver Owner fails to bring a lawsuit to establish title to a portion of real estate until Nat Neighbor has built a house which encroaches on the property in which Owner has title; b) Tommy Traveler learns that his father has died, but waits four years to come forward until the entire estate has been distributed on the belief that Tommy was dead; c) Susan Smart has a legitimate claim against her old firm for sexual harassment, but waits three years to come forward and file a lawsuit, after the employee who caused the problem has died, and the witnesses have all left the company and scattered around the country. The defense of laches is often raised in the list of "affirmative defenses" in answers filed by defendants, but is seldom applied by the courts. Laches is not to be confused with the "statute of limitations," which sets specific periods to file a lawsuit for types of claims (negligence, breach of contract, fraud, etc.).