Diebold Sues Massachusetts for "Wrongful Purchase" 422
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."
Good move! (Score:5, Insightful)
Biased Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Insane. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm speechless.
Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Words fail.
Re:Biased Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
In all honesty though, a bit of editorialising is warranted here. What if Coke sued you because you bought a Pepsi? What if AMD sued you because you bought an Intel chip?
Diebold's premise is moronic and it invites speculation as to how closely related the parents of their board members are, and which particular brand of crack their counsel are smoking.
Apparently... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Biased Summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you reading the same slashdot as I am? Since when has slashdot been about "objective news reporting"?
Re:Biased Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
First, there is no such thing as objective reporting. Everything is biased. Period.
Second, Slashdot is not about journalism. It's the offspring of a news aggregator (why the hell is "aggregator" not in the Firefox 2 US English dictionary?) and a forum. Slashdot doesn't report the news, Slashdot reports that someone else has reported the news.
Re:Biased Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good move! (Score:4, Insightful)
So do many of us, and now we have a nice example of corporate conduct to bring up should our local governments want to buy their stuff.
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that it matters much. Diebold's claim is bullshit. Sour grapes.
The basis for their suit is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would imagine the rational goes something like this:
"The secretary of state's office set their requirments for a voting machine contract, and invited bids. We have looked at the bid they accepted, and looked at ours. We believe our bid meets the criteria far more closely than the bid that was accepted, and we think any objective observer would agree. We don't think anything improper went on, but we do believe that the state has not selected a vendor in line with the rules they laid out. There for, the process has not treated us fairly"
In a nutshell, they're saying the state did not fairly apply their own rules. If they had, Diebold believe they would have won.
Re:Makes sense (no, really!) (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately there aren't much details available (open selection process my ass), but I expect that Diebold had the cheapest offering that matched the selection requirements, but were decided against anyway. Private enterprise is allowed to make selections based on secret criteria, but public government isn't: they have to come clean on why they selected a more expensive offering than Diebold even though Diebold met the criteria.
But I highly suspect the refusal to select Diebold is more related to Diebold's Republican ties than any merits of their competitors. Either that, or the Diebold voting machines had a blinking light somewhere, and the state mistook their voting machines for bombs.
Re:Makes sense (no, really!) (Score:5, Insightful)
Well obviously.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Biased Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
What if some large entity produced a long list of selection criteria and then asked suppliers to submit bids and supporting documentation, no doubt costing real man hours of the companies submitting bids? At that point, the large entity chose one supplier without any feedback to either the chosen supplier or those suppliers not chosen.
That's more what's going on here. I doubt Diebold has any reasonable expectation that the purchasing decision will be overturned. What they really want is access to the state's documents explaining why the state chose their competitor so they can address their weaknesses before they're asked for bids on other contracts. Given the effort that goes into the bidding process for these kinds of Government contracts, what they're asking for isn't all that unreasonable. But thanks to the screwiness of the US legal system, they can't just ask for something reasonable and expect to get it. They must ask for something entirely unreasonable and then demand the reasonable request as a means of supporting the unreasonable request. My guess is that Diebold's discovery motion will either be granted or denied at which point the suit will be dropped.
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Diebold's position (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
I bid a lot of government contracts, I get some, I lose some. The ones I've lost have occasionally been to better concepts the ones I've wons have occasionally beaten some better work... in all cases the wins were based on who came in the lowest.
I understand the basis of your remark - The process needs to be open, so we the taxpayers, know that our civil employees are doing their job correctly and spending our money they way we expect them to. Diebold should have the right to see if there was some back room hankey pankey going on, and the bidding process was fair. A lawsuit may be the only way to prove what they think they already know. Or, they could just be sore losers, trying to make the state pay for having the audacity to use a competitor. I guess we'll find out.... unfortunately, the tax payers in Mass. are the ones who will ultimately pay for this......
Re:Biased Summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:3, Insightful)
W T F ? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Well, let's see here, Diebold... you have no permanent record, you have a litany of hacks, your top management has a strong candidate bias on record, you act like assholes and sue everybody you don't like. Case dismissed with prejudice, get out of my court and stay out of my state. Diebold to pay all legal bills, back to the founding fathers."
Re:Diebold's position (Score:4, Insightful)
If they lose this case (which seems likely) and their reputation is tarnished (are they saying the disabled testers opinions are wrong?) than how is this in their best interests?
Being a jerk, either as an individual or a corporation, isn't only about agressively promoting your self interest. Sometimes it's just being a jerk.
Re:Biased Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Good guess.
Not so sure about that. They'll scruntinize the docs and look for anything that could enable them to challenge the decision. Massachusetts represents a threat to them nation-wide, since they are setting a precedent for other states. They've got to nip this in the bud or they'll potentially lose contracts all over the US.
The last thing Diebold wants to see is a new major competitor enter the field, who will gain valuable experience and expertise from a successful deployment.
Re:Diebold's position (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Diebold's position (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:3, Insightful)
C'mon. More was done for less, on the same ground in 1776. To bad you Yanks pissed away freedom and principle, killing the hard-won Republic.
Re:Diebold's position (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: grammer (Score:4, Insightful)
This is especially true of irony and sarcasm. Every day some slashdotter complains about leaving off the irony tags - as if they didn't exist pre-internet. The problem isn't that sarcasm translates badly to text, the problem is that the poster hasn't learned to properly write sarcastic statements.
We should really be learning how to write better, rather than forcing spoken English into text.
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No surprise given the systems. (Score:2, Insightful)
Given that it's Mass, I doubt that Diebold could find a jury that would
even pretend to be sympathetic to their cause.
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, we know this. That's how Haliburton and Diebold became leaders in their respective fields.
I give it 4 out of 5 black flies in my Chardonnay (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but can you provide for me a list of developed countries that value freedom?
We don't need to even talk about the US, of course. The UK is the current world leader in development of a surveillance society. Sweden just announced they've been tapping everyone's phones at will for years and wants it to be legitimized. Australia is currently bending over forwards and backwards to do everything the US wants it to do.
Can you tell me what country actually protects your privacy? And is accepting immigrants?
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:3, Insightful)
When I worked for Mrs Queen, even with the most ehtical of intentions, we did have the issue that the open procurement system would result in unsuitable tenders (the process was run by procurement people who knew nothing about technology) and would cheerfully saddle you with nonsense to save a quid.
So, we would tend to do an informal market survey first, talk to vendors, make a buying decision based on normal commercial business criteria (is this vendor competent? Is the product any good?) then load the RFP in favour of the best solution.
The other issue that made things hard was that some procurements are inhrenetly single vendor - for example, what about renewing a maintenance contract for Sun servers? Sun's own Platinum maintenance is very well priced, so you'd be an idiot not to use them, but government procurement left unfettered will end up hiring Joe PC shop down the street.