Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Blasts Google For False Claims In Court Documents
recoiledsnake writes "Microsoft writes in a blog post that Google knowingly lied to the court while suing the US government over its consideration of only Microsoft implementations. We previously discussed Google winning an injunction against the Department of the Interior over this. According to Microsoft Deputy General Counsel David Howard, 'Google filed a motion for a preliminary injunction telling the court three times in a single document that Google Apps for Government is certified under FISMA. Google has repeated this statement in many other places as well. Indeed, for several months and as recently as this morning, Google's website states, "Google Apps for Government – now with FISMA certification." ... So imagine my surprise on Friday afternoon when, after some delay, some of the court papers were unsealed, at least in part. There for all to see was a statement by the Department of Justice contradicting Google on one of its basic FISMA claims.' Howard goes on to quote the DoJ brief (PDF), which says, '... it appears that Google's Google Apps for Government does not have FISMA certification.'"
I think the title says it all. What's the old phrase? "If you can't blind them with science, then baffle them with bullshit."
goatse warning.
In Liberty, Rene
Don't click.
This space for rent.
"However, the government is a customer too and is free to choose a product that happens to be in the unique position of having competitors who think their products are better."
The government isn't free to choose. Government have to follow strict regulations in purchasing to insure it gets the best value for money, doesn't show any favoritism and prevent corruption. One can debate the effectiveness of the regulations, but they are there for a reason.
Google does this, it's "Nothing to see here, you shouldn't be surprised, move on, move on"
Microsoft does this, "omg .. did you see what they did! remember this day, and USE IT IN COMMENTS FOR THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS"
Yes, and Google's App Platform for Government wasn't FISMA certified and thus wasn't qualified to be bought. Then Google sues and lies about having that certification. I'm seeing no reason why Google's lawsuit should be entertained at all. Especially since if this were Microsoft doing exactly what Google is doing the S
GSA certified and accredited Google Apps (FISMA certification)
GSA is the lead agency for acquisition for the US Govt
GSA met several the NIST standards at the moderate level
DOI claims that the GSA certification doesn't meet their specific standards and they have to have a govt only cloud in the continental US.
DOI security has been the laughingstock of the US govt for as long as I can remember*
DOI disconnected from the internet by a federal judge for complete failure in IT security
If you read the brief, it's actually not quite as simple as Google "does not have FISMA certification." FISMA certification is per-agency, and Google *has* FISMA certification for GSA. Google *does not* have FISMA certification for any other agency. Each agency makes its own determination. It also appears that FISMA is a minimum for information security, so agencies can require more than FISMA if they want to. (Refer to brief pages 37-39 for the details on FISMA.)
Being wrong is not the same as lieing. Furthermore, I would imagine it is very difficult to prove someone deliberately lied.
Max.
I hope this truly is anonymous.
You are correct in saying "Government have to follow strict regulations in purchasing to insure it gets the best value for money, doesn't show any favoritism and prevent corruption" but let me precede that by saying that I'm a government employee and that I work in a position that is part of the procurement process.
Here's how it works: You go to company A, who develops an awesome product and one you really wish to purchase. It's more expensive than you'd like, but it's been tested and it works. But, since you need to get the government the best deal it possibly can you also need to get competing quotes against said product. The easiest way to get around that liability is to simply "game" the system. You go to vendor B & C (which produce vastly inferior products, or products that are similar but flat out won't work for whatever reason) and ask for comparable quotes. You *know* vendor B's products are 10x the markup on vendor A's, so immediately they don't have a shot. Vendor B's prices are actually MUCH cheaper, but you know they make a killing on their vendor supported contracts, which are 3x as expensive as vendor A's contracts. So you include contract support in both quotes and suddenly vendor A is tens-of-thousands of dollars less.
It happens _all_ the time. Better yet, you can simply request a form letter that allows you to bypass any competitive bidding completely and just purchase from the vendor as single-source.
Does it happen because we're getting our palms greased with easy money and kickbacks? Not at all, we're not politicians. It happens because of the bureaucratic process we're all required to go through just to get the items we need. Would you buy a house built by the lowest bidder? Sure it'll meet the basic requirements (shelter, protection, stability) but it's built out of asbestos and the floor is made of tar & straw. Or, would you look around and find something that *works*, fits your needs and is competitive to the price you're willing to pay without feeling like you've just been ripped off? If we all took the government motto of "get the best value for the money" we'd all be living in mobile homes. It may be the cheapest thing out there, but I wouldn't recommend it.
That's government purchasing in a nutshell.
Except Google was not caught lying. We have Microsoft claiming that Google lied, nothing more.
Microsoft Chief Council says Google Lied in Court...
Pot, meet kettle...
As usual, the headline is a bit misleading, and certainly leaves out a large part of the story. Google Apps Permier has been FISMA certified by the GSA, so when you go to the Google website and look, and it says "Now FISMA certified", they aren't lying. They really are FISMA certified. However, FISMA is not a blanket certification. The DoI does not have to accept the FISMA certification of the GSA, it can decide to do its own testing if it wishes. This doesn't change the fact that Google Apps Permier has in fact attained FISMA certification.
The second tricky bit is Google Apps for Government, a product that didn't exist at the time the court case started. The law says (and the brief points out) that FISMA certification cannot be attained until after implementation of the product, and thorough testing. So, in that case, Neither Microsoft's offering, nor Google Apps for Government, is FISMA certified, nor could they have been at the time. Now, Google Apps Premiere was certified, and Apps for Government was going to be done under a more restrictive set of security constraints, so it would have likely passed too. What I have to wonder though, is did Google lie, and say Google Apps for Government had the FISMA cert, or did they say "Google Apps is FISMA certified", which is true?
I have to come down on the side of the Microsoft lawyer playing this up for far more than it should be.
First, Google Apps was FISMA certified in July of last year. This is about a subset of Google Apps (because the gov't. doesn't want everyone using the whole shebang). It would be like Microsoft getting Microsoft Office.Net (or whatever they call it this week) certified, then someone complaining that Microsoft Word.Net isn't.
Second, Microsoft doesn't have ANY FISMA certification, so if certification were a requirement, Microsoft cannot bid.
More here
Google's App Platform for Government wasn't FISMA certified and thus wasn't qualified to be bought.
Neither is Microsoft's.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
You need to RTFA.
This space for rent.
Google really begins to look nasty here.... the government is trying to do something that is the right thing by sane security standards (there is no such thing as 'secure multitenancy'.... that is an Oxymoron.)... and Google's insisting they sacrifice security requirements they have specified, just so that Google can provide service to them using a non-dedicated cloud?
I understand Google fearing they pick M$ due to hegemony... but if Google verifiably hasn't provided a product yet that will meet their stated security requirements, then Google should stop with this nonsense, interfering with government, and instead take it as a lesson about what they need to revise in regards to their product.
PAGE 38
They didn't lose, they weren't allowed in the competition - that is the real story. Microsoft is trying to get people believe that there is some other issue/story, they even managed to distract you from the real story. DOI issued a RFQ that specified Microsoft product only rather than stating the requirements and accepting one on its merits, Google believed DOI was not acting properly.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Microsoft knows that it's lost the war to maintain its' monopoly. Now it's a question of fighting individual holding actions, to preserve as much as possible, for as long as possible.
By next year, not only will there be more devices shipping with linux than Windows, but when HP makes all their line dual-boot between their webOS linux variant and windows, linux will become the #2 shipping desktop OS, surpassing Apple.
After that, in 2013 you can be sure that the other manufacturers will follow suit. What that means is that on April 8th, 2014, when Microsoft finally kills off XP, most of those corporate users won't be switching to Windows. They'll have replaced those devices with a combination of tablets, smartphones, and desktops that run linux. Already, 12% of all iPad users are in corporations, and 1/3 of them are using their tablets as replacements, abandoning their desktops and laptops. It turns out that most managers don't need a desktop. It's not like they write long emails ...