Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Diebold Sues Massachusetts for "Wrongful Purchase"

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:51 AM
from the better-lawyers-instead-of-better-products dept.
The Courts Politics
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."

Related Stories

[+] Politics: CA Proposes Rigorous Voting Machine Testing 172 comments
christian.einfeldt writes "During her successful campaign for California Secretary of State, newly-minted California Elections Czar Debra Bowen spoke repeatedly of the need to use free open source software in voting machines to ensure the integrity of California's elections. Now that Secretary Bowen is acting on that campaign pledge, closed-source voting machine vendor Diebold worries aloud that rejecting its black-box voting machines could snarl California's elections. Diebold's concerns come at the same time that it is suing Massachusetts for declining to purchase those same voting machines." Quoting: "California's elections chief is proposing the toughest standards for voting systems in the country, so tough that they could [have the result of banishing] ATM-like touch-screen voting machines from the state. For the first time, California is demanding the right to try hacking every voting machine with 'red teams' of computer experts and to study the software inside the machines, line-by-line, for security holes."
[+] Diebold Goes 0 For 3 In Massachusetts Case 119 comments
beetle496 writes "ComputerWorld reports that last week a judge denied Diebold's request to block ES&S pact with Massachusetts. This is a follow-up to the earlier discussion here after Diebold contended that the state had erred in selecting the machines of its rival, citing accessibility provisions of the HAVA law. Quoting: 'Diebold's request for an injunction to block the execution of the contract with ES&S was rejected... The judge also denied Diebold's request to have an accelerated discovery process and to keep the state's legal team from viewing internal Diebold documents... "The suit is still there, but they went zero for three yesterday," the spokesman said.' The actual accessibility concerns have been discussed over at the TEITAC listserv, including a few telling observations from experts familiar with accessible voting and at least one state insider."
[+] Politics: Ohio Audit Reveals More Diebold Problems 222 comments
armb writes with a link to a Wired Blog entry about irregularities found in Diebold databases from the state of Ohio. The election in question here is November 2006, and the corruption of the entries may raise doubts about accurate tabulations. "Vote totals in two separate databases that should have been identical had different totals. Although Diebold explained that this was part of the system design for separate vote tables to get updated at different times during the tabulation process, the team questioned the wisdom of a design that creates non-identical vote totals. Tables in the database contained elements that were missing date and time stamps that would indicate when information was entered. Entries that did have date/time stamps showed a January 1, 1970 date. The database is built from Microsoft's Jet database engine. The engine, according to Microsoft, is vulnerable to corruption when a lot of concurrent activity is happening with the database, such as what occurs on an election night when results are uploaded and various servers are interacting with the database simultaneously."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Diebold Sues Massachusetts for "Wrongful Purchase" 50 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Keybindings Beta
Q W E
A S D
Loading ... Please wait.
  • In Soviet Massachusetts, Diebold sues YOU!

    Sorry, I cound't stop myself.

    • Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mick Ohrberg (744441) <mick...ohrberg@@@gmail...com> on Monday March 26 2007, @12:32PM (#18490067) Homepage Journal
      Wait a minute. I RTFA, and it actually does look like Diebold is suing because they're sore losers? No breach of contract, but just because they didn't win the bid? Am I missing something here? Does that mean Ford can sue me if I buy a Chevy?
      [ Parent ]

      • Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:5, Informative)

        by ubuwalker31 (1009137) on Monday March 26 2007, @12:36PM (#18490127)
        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.
        [ Parent ]

        • Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by john82 (68332) on Monday March 26 2007, @12:57PM (#18490473)
          Most state and federal purchase contracts (short of "sole source" contracts) have a procedure to follow for assessing the candidates. It is up to each solicitor to publish the evaluation criteria. What you don't always get is how they graded each component in the criteria. Because technology and price are only two of many criteria, the winning bid may not be the highest score in either. In any contract of sufficient interest to the bidders, there is always contention over who won and why. Happens in federal contracts all the time. Some companies tend to avoid formal protest (even when they feel there is cause) because they don't want to adversely affect their chances in the future. Others see reason to protest and do.

          Despite the typical Slashdot half-the-facts synopsis, don't read anything in Diebold protesting this contract. Diebold is after two things: to find out HOW the criteria were evaluated and to appeal the contract award. At this point, neither Diebold nor anyone on Slashdot knows how the candidates were evaluated. Therefore speculation about the validity of Diebold's case is idiotic.

          No, I don't have any connection whatsoever to Diebold. I have been involved in years worth of contracting. You'd be surprised how many times I investigated after a contract was awarded elsewhere, only to find out that it was someone on the customer side who had their finger on the scale.
          [ Parent ]

        • Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:5, Informative)

          by Jim_Maryland (718224) on Monday March 26 2007, @01:35PM (#18490947)
          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.
          [ Parent ]

    • Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:5, Funny)

      by edbob (960004) on Monday March 26 2007, @12:37PM (#18490159)
      Since Diebold, is suing the State of, Massachusetts, could I sue someone, possibly, for using too many commas in the summary? The use of, so many, commas, makes the summary too difficult, to read. Why must, people, insist on using, so many unnecessary, commas? It sounds like, William Shatner, in my head, when I read, it.
      [ Parent ]

          • Re:In Soviet Massachusetts... (Score:5, Informative)

            by Ogive17 (691899) on Monday March 26 2007, @01:38PM (#18490979)
            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.
            [ Parent ]

        • Re:In Soviet JAX (Score:5, Funny)

          by shotgunsaint (968677) on Monday March 26 2007, @01:05PM (#18490583)
          Clearly, by convincing stupid americans that burnt coffee isn't burnt at all, just stronger, and making them feel like connoisseurs. Off topic, I know. Can't resist the urge to bash Starbucks.
          [ Parent ]

  • Good move! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Vengeance (46019) on Monday March 26 2007, @11:53AM (#18489459)
    I know nothing will motivate me to use a company's products like having them SUE my ass. Is Diebold kidding or something, here? I want to see them get smacked down, and HARD.

    • Re:Good move! (Score:5, Funny)

      by sunwukong (412560) on Monday March 26 2007, @11:59AM (#18489537)
      You're right -- based on previous examples we've seen here, the best business plan is not to sue the distributors, but to go after the end users.

      Next up: Diebold sues the voters but allows quick settlements of $3000 each.
      [ Parent ]

    • Re:Good move! (Score:5, Funny)

      by noidentity (188756) on Monday March 26 2007, @12:11PM (#18489719)
      "I know nothing will motivate me to use a company's products like having them SUE my ass."

      Hey, it worked great for SCO! Oh, wait...
      [ Parent ]

    • Re:Good move! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Jason Earl (1894) on Monday March 26 2007, @12:27PM (#18489993) Homepage

      If I was purchasing voting machines for another state I would add: "doesn't sue potential customers when it loses a bid" to my list of qualifications. That would clearly put Diebold out of the running.

      Every once in a while you read about executives from a company that are so ridiculously inept that it is funny. Diebold certainly fits that description.

      [ Parent ]

      • Re:Diebold's position (Score:5, Insightful)

        by phoenixwade (997892) on Monday March 26 2007, @12:45PM (#18490269) Homepage

        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...

        If, by best, you mean "lowest Bidder" you Might be correct, assuming the job isn't a "no-bid" contract. But I've yet to see a "Best" win a government bid, except maybe by accident. it's all about the lowest bid that will conform to the spec.

          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......
        [ Parent ]

      • Re:Diebold's position (Score:5, Informative)

        by rifter (147452) on Monday March 26 2007, @01:12PM (#18490669) Homepage

        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.

        [ Parent ]

  • Biased Summary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by setirw (854029) on Monday March 26 2007, @11:53AM (#18489461) Homepage
    Although I don't support Diebold either, please keep personal opinion out of the summaries. Quotes like "diebold executives appeared confused when encountering election officials who made an intelligent choice" don't belong in objective news reporting.

    • Re:Biased Summary (Score:5, Funny)

      by Vengeance (46019) on Monday March 26 2007, @11:57AM (#18489507)
      Objective news reporting? You must be new here.
      [ Parent ]

    • Re:Biased Summary (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Trails (629752) on Monday March 26 2007, @12:00PM (#18489561)
      Joke's on you! Objective news reporting has no place in Slashdot!

      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.

      [ Parent ]

      • Re:Biased Summary (Score:5, Interesting)

        by rackhamh (217889) on Monday March 26 2007, @12:11PM (#18489717)
        What if Coke sued you because you bought a Pepsi? What if AMD sued you because you bought an Intel chip?

        That's not quite the right analogy. It's more like if you were deciding between Coke and Pepsi, and told both companies that you'd be selecting on the basis of taste. Suppose now that Pepsi's research shows that people strongly prefer Pepsi over Coke -- but you choose Coke anyway. That's sort of what's going on here.

        That said, as I noted in my other post, I don't understand where the actual legal issue is in all this.
        [ Parent ]

      • Re:Biased Summary (Score:5, Funny)

        by vyrus128 (747164) <gwillen@NOsPAm.nerdnet.org> on Monday March 26 2007, @12:14PM (#18489759) Homepage
        which particular brand of crack their counsel are smoking.

        I can only imagine it went something like this:

        Diebold exec: ... so we want to sue them because they went with our competitors, and, uhm, that's not fair. Because we always win. And, like, why should someone else get to win? It's not fair.
        Diebold lawyer: *stifling laughter* That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
        Diebold exec: We're paying you how much?
        Diebold lawyer: ... ... ... we'll get right on it.

        [ Parent ]

      • Try buying heating oil in CT... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jpellino (202698) on Monday March 26 2007, @12:22PM (#18489899)
        Step 1: Establish a credit account with Oil Company A.
        Step 2: Call them and ask the price of oil next time you need some.
        Step 3: Get a load of oil from Oil Company B, who happens to have a better prioce that week.
        Step 4: Get your credit account cancelled by Oil Company A because they know how often you should need oil and you didn't order form them.

        No, it's not a lawsuit, but they're denying you credit for simply buying from their competition.

        This is all perfectly legal in the State of Connecticut. It's like driving by a Mobil station to get cheaper gas at Shell, then Mobil cuts up your Mobil card.

        Business today seems to run on the notion that if it's not specifically prohibited, we should try and do it, no matter how bad it looks. I get better ethics and learning curves from my third graders.

        [ Parent ]

      • Re:Biased Summary (Score:5, Insightful)

        by curunir (98273) * on Monday March 26 2007, @12:28PM (#18490003) Homepage Journal

        What if AMD sued you because you bought an Intel chip?
        That's not exactly what's going on here. There's obviously a bit of history here. It's more akin to asking:

        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.
        [ Parent ]

    • Re:Biased Summary (Score:4, Insightful)

      by HarvardAce (771954) on Monday March 26 2007, @12:03PM (#18489611) Homepage
      don't belong in objective news reporting.

      Are you reading the same slashdot as I am? Since when has slashdot been about "objective news reporting"?

      [ Parent ]

    • Re:Biased Summary (Score:5, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Monday March 26 2007, @12:03PM (#18489613) Homepage Journal

      Quotes like "diebold executives appeared confused when encountering election officials who made an intelligent choice" don't belong in objective news reporting.

      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.

      [ Parent ]

    • Re:Biased Summary (Score:5, Funny)

      by Otter (3800) on Monday March 26 2007, @12:07PM (#18489657) Journal
      In fairness, as a Massachusetts resident, I'd also be confused by one of our officials making an intelligent choice. Next you'll be telling me they won't be bolting the machines into epoxy-filled holes in the ceiling!
      [ Parent ]

  • Insane. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Teddy Beartuzzi (727169) on Monday March 26 2007, @11:55AM (#18489477) Journal
    It's as if I'm reading the Onion when I read that article.

    I'm speechless.

  • The problem with the Diebold machines (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2007, @11:56AM (#18489487)
    They had a flashing LED when a vote was cast. This caused Boston police to shut the city down while the bomb squad went to each polling place to blow up the machines.

  • It's about time. (Score:5, Funny)

    by qwijibo (101731) on Monday March 26 2007, @11:56AM (#18489489)
    It's about time some benevolent large corporation stood up to their customers. Customers left to their own decisions will frequently buy the wrong products. The manufacturer obviously knows far more about their product than the customer, so they are the only ones in a position to make a sensible decision about what other people should use.

    Clearly the best product for any situation is the one that the biggest company is pushing. It's not like companies get to be big in the first place by overcharging for their products and using the courts to keep competition down.

  • Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by antifoidulus (807088) on Monday March 26 2007, @11:59AM (#18489535) Homepage Journal
    but wasn't one of Diebold's main selling points on using computerized voting over paper ballots that computerized voting systems help disabled people vote?(I do believe at some point they invoked the Americans with Disabilities act as a rationale for deploying these systems). So now disabled people actually help pick out a system and Diebold sues? (I guess according to Diebold disabled people aren't able enough to choose a system wisely :P)

    Words fail.

  • In other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Wise Dragon (71071) on Monday March 26 2007, @11:59AM (#18489541) Homepage
    Area man Greg Norton was sued by multinational corporation PepsiCO for purchasing a competing product, Coca-Cola. Said attorney Mark Wiseguy, "We compete against Coke around the country all the time". "Based on the criteria set out by Mr. Norton, we had a fair degree of confidence we'd come out on top, and nothing we heard during the process dissuaded us of that confidence." Greg Norton is said to have replied, "Dude, where's my country?"

  • Wow..... just wow.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rolfwind (528248) on Monday March 26 2007, @12:04PM (#18489627)
    Now, I wonder how many places around the country will start deciding not to give Diebold a shot at all by not inviting the company to showcase its products, to avoid the chance of getting sued. Good job Diebold! (And you would think that all the bad news the last years was justification enough not to pick Diebold.)

    In other news, a Toyota dealer is suing a man who bought a Honda, because "based on the criteria set out by the purchaser, we had a fair degree of confidence we'd come out on top, and nothing we heard during the process dissuaded us of that confidence." Actually, Toyoto is a decent manufacturer, make it a Yugo dealer.

  • Catch 22 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anti_Climax (447121) on Monday March 26 2007, @12:05PM (#18489639)
    They voted for the diebold machine, but they cast that vote *on* a diebold machine.

    It's easy to see how things got mixed up from there...

  • Reasons? We don't need no stinking reasons. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Fex303 (557896) on Monday March 26 2007, @12:05PM (#18489641)
    I RTFAed, expecting to find some sort of explanation for why exactly Diebold is suing.

    There isn't one. To save others the trouble, here's the closest thing to a reason they give:

    "We compete against AutoMARK around the country all the time," Weisberg said. "Based on the criteria set out by the Commonwealth, we had a fair degree of confidence we'd come out on top, and nothing we heard during the process dissuaded us of that confidence."

    Weisberg said Diehold was so stunned it did not get the contract that it now believes "it's worth the time and money" of going to court to challenge the contract's award, even though the company at this stage has no hard evidence of unfair treatment.

    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.

  • Seems reasonable to me (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wonkavader (605434) on Monday March 26 2007, @12:07PM (#18489653)
    I'd love it if someone would do this in every state where someone agreed to buy Diebold voting machines.

    Wrong actor, right technique. Based on security issues alone, we know Diebold is always the wrong choice. Just by a knee jerk methodology, we could keep the machines out of people's hands for another few months each time. It would generate some press, if nothing else.

    LBJ wanted his opponent accused of having sex with barnyard animals. It wasn't that he thought the charge would stick -- he wanted people to hear the candidate deny it. In this case, the response will be "well, your software is a joke -- completely insecure." We'll get to hear Diebold deny the charge. Any suit brought to force reopening analysis before purchase of Diebold's stuff would mean that, once again, they'd have to say "No, our software isn't laughably insecure. No the fact the our code showed up on the Internet isn't a problem. No, our keys are not from a hotel minibar and orderable over the Internet, and no, they're not all the same. No, we didn't miscount this race in this way or that race in that way." If they deny it enough, everyone will know that it's true. Oddly, though, in this case it actually WILL be true.

    So I think we should also allege that they have sex with barnyard animals.

  • Manufacturers. Grrr. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pointbeing (701902) on Monday March 26 2007, @12:54PM (#18490425)
    I work for an agency under DoD. I had some end of year fundage to spend so I decided to buy some printers and networkable scanners - about $100k worth of gadgets. I'd requested HP hardware because that's pretty much what the infrastructure here is geared to support.

    Because of the size of the contract award the thing went out for open bid - and I was contacted by another printer manufacturer. I won't tell you their name, but their initials are L-e-x-m-a-r-k.

    Strongarm tactics ensue. First the local contracting office asked me to define printing and scanning requirements as the Other Printer Company believes they can meet my requirements at a lower cost - but we won't mention the fact that all the supplies I have in stock are from the Printer Company I Wanted To Use and adding another hardware vendor would be a logistical nightmare.

    So - starting with the network scanners I start looking at hardware specs. The Other Printer Company says they can meet my requirements, but since a digital sender is an input device as opposed to an output device, I would have to get the new hardware certifiied by the network spies and I don't have time to do that, so for that part of the procurement I got the hardware I requested.

    The printers were another matter. Once you've specified dpi, print speed and networking capabilities you've pretty much got to go with whoever brings the lowest bid - so the Other Printer Company won that.

    During the acquisition process I felt like I was being strongarmed by the Other Printer Company and since I couldn't give a good reason not to use their hardware I have to use it. If I'd have had a week instead of a day to process the procurement I probably could have.

    I have learned that I need to fine-tune my hardware requirements to keep it from happening again - but manufacturers can and will sue the government for buying from somebody else.

    • Re:Makes sense (no, really!) (Score:5, Informative)

      by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary@NOSpam.yahoo.com> on Monday March 26 2007, @12:20PM (#18489841) Journal
      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.
      [ Parent ]

    • Re:Makes sense (no, really!) (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tgd (2822) on Monday March 26 2007, @12:23PM (#18489909)
      Yeah heaven forbid an important decision could be made via non-verifiable means with no paper trail...
      [ Parent ]

    • The basis for their suit is... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Toby_Tyke (797359) on Monday March 26 2007, @12:21PM (#18489863) Journal
      If it's not an issue of impropriety, then what's the legal basis for the suit? Any lawyers out there who can shed some light on this?

      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.
      [ Parent ]
Check for more

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2008 SourceForge, Inc.