Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Google Government Software The Courts

Microsoft Blasts Google For False Claims In Court Documents 213

Posted by Soulskill
from the a-case-of-he-filed-she-filed dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Blasts Google For False Claims In Court Documents

Comments Filter:
  • by Rene S. Hollan (1943) on Monday April 11, 2011 @04:04PM (#35785270)

    goatse warning.

  • Goatse link (Score:3, Informative)

    by recoiledsnake (879048) on Monday April 11, 2011 @04:05PM (#35785278)

    Don't click.

  • by Desler (1608317) on Monday April 11, 2011 @04:15PM (#35785406)

    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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11, 2011 @04:47PM (#35785742)

    So, for those of you who didn't RTFA, here's what actually happened:

    Google Apps Premier HAS a certification.

    The even more secure Google Apps for Government has applied for the same certification but hasn't gotten it yet.

    It is unclear whether or not there is even a need for the additional certification given the massive similarities between the two platforms. Microsoft is claiming that there must be because Google applied for a new certification for Google Apps For Government. Given that the two platforms vary by not much more code than would be involved in a typical Patch Tuesday, it is highly unlikely that this is material to the conversation.

    Just to go back to the original problem: A government entity approved a massively more expensive Microsoft solution over an equivalent Google solution that would have saved the taxpayers significant amounts of cash. Microsoft is now saying that this is all because of the difference in title between "Premier" and "For Government." Call me skeptical, but this smells rotten to me.

  • Re:Double-standards (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11, 2011 @04:49PM (#35785778)

    Well, it's a bit more specific. Google sued the government because they did not look at Google Apps for Government. The government claimed that they didn't because Google Apps for Government lacked FISMA certification. In their lawsuit Google claimed that they did. In that context, whether or not Google Apps for Government was certified or Google Apps Premier was certified it becomes an issue of credibility for their entire lawsuit.

  • Pot and Kettle (Score:5, Informative)

    by madmark1 (1946846) on Monday April 11, 2011 @05:04PM (#35785934)

    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.

  • by IICV (652597) on Monday April 11, 2011 @05:55PM (#35786474)

    Just to go back to the original problem: A government entity approved a massively more expensive Microsoft solution over an equivalent Google solution that would have saved the taxpayers significant amounts of cash. Microsoft is now saying that this is all because of the difference in title between "Premier" and "For Government." Call me skeptical, but this smells rotten to me.

    While keeping in mind that (IIRC) the Microsoft solution currently does not have FISMA certification, and part of the reason why it was going to be so expensive is because they were going to get it certified in the process.

  • by monk (1958) on Monday April 11, 2011 @06:22PM (#35786738) Homepage

    Here's the link to Google's claim and a link to request the documentation if anyone wants to follow up:

    http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/government/trust.html [google.com]

    I'm betting they can back it up.

  • by RobertM1968 (951074) on Monday April 11, 2011 @06:42PM (#35786902) Homepage Journal

    According to the court papers, Microsoft is not lying here. Google Apps for Government really doesn't have FISMA certification, even though Google said it did.

    According to the papers just filed, neither is Google:

    A portion of Google's response: Even so, we did not mislead the court or our customers. Google Apps received a FISMA security authorization from the General Services Administration in July 2010. Google Apps for Government is the same system with enhanced security controls that go beyond FISMA requirements. As planned we’re working with GSA to continuously update our documentation with these and other additional enhancements.

    And the confusion stems from this:

    The Justice Department acknowledges that the General Services Administration (GSA) had certified a different Google offering, Google Apps Premier, for its own particular use under FISMA last July. As the DOJ's brief explains, "However, Google intends to offer Google Apps for Government as a more restrictive version of its product and Google is currently in the process of finishing its application for FISMA certification for its Google Apps for Government." Lest there be any doubt about the situation, the brief adds, "To be clear, in the view of the GSA, the agency that certified Google's Google Apps Premier, Google does not have FISMA certification for Google Apps for Government."

    And finally, to clarify, GAfG is a subset of GAP (which does have FISMA certification).

Just because he's dead is no reason to lay off work.

Working...