Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Microsoft Google Government Software The Courts

Microsoft Blasts Google For False Claims In Court Documents 213

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This discussion has been archived.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 StuartHankins ( 1020819 ) on Monday April 11, 2011 @04:06PM (#35785304)
  • by doconnor ( 134648 ) on Monday April 11, 2011 @04:07PM (#35785330) Homepage

    "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.

  • Double-standards (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11, 2011 @04:08PM (#35785332)

    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"

  • proof? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dwater ( 72834 ) on Monday April 11, 2011 @04:33PM (#35785598)

    Being wrong is not the same as lieing. Furthermore, I would imagine it is very difficult to prove someone deliberately lied.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11, 2011 @05:09PM (#35785982)

    Google went through the agonizing process of FISMA that is very stringent compared to jokes like a SAS 70 type 2. Microsoft did nothing. DOI does not have a FISMA certified private or govt cloud.

    Irrellevant. Microsoft's product had already been proven to be able to be FISMA certified per the court documents from DOI. It also indicates that any solution cannot be FISMA certified until it is built. Whatever solution is eventually bought must past FISMA certification afterwards.

    Google cried foul, claiming they had already passed the FISMA qualification, something no other cloud vendor had done at the same time period. Google claimed a certified solution like their cloud could not be compared against a non-existent pipedream cloud.

    Actually, no they didn't. Google passed FISMA for Google Apps Premier not Google Apps for Government. Also, the DOI requirements were in the RFQ at the beginning. The FISMA certification was not relevant to whether Google Apps for Government was chosen or not. It was the fact that Google indicated Google Apps would co-mingle Federal, State and Local governments in that cloud. THAT was the deal breaker, not the FISMA cert or lack thereof. DOI required that only Federal be allowed and this was indicated in the RFQ. FISMA certification is per agency also. The GSA's certification is meaningless beyond the fact that it indicates a particular product *can* be certified.

  • by Locutus ( 9039 ) on Monday April 11, 2011 @05:24PM (#35786142)
    you must be too young to have watched the Microsoft vs DOJ case where Microsoft showed a video of how easy it was to download netscape and install it(or something like that) and repeatedly was asked if this was an unedited unscripted video and repeatedly they said yes Your Honor. So out comes the prosecution with scenes showing icons mysteriously moving and even disappearing on the desktops in the video and to that the Microsoft lawyers confessed it was mocked up. So what is lying to the Judge and perjury really mean in todays courts? zip, zero, nada, nothing.

    BTW, I still have seen no dates for when Google got that cert and when they said they "had" it.


"The eleventh commandment was `Thou Shalt Compute' or `Thou Shalt Not Compute' -- I forget which." -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982