Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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This discussion has been archived.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 DavidR1991 ( 1047748 ) on Monday April 11, 2011 @04:06PM (#35785300) Homepage

    Same as what they were doing against Apple. They accused Apple of using the wrong font size in their court documents (hence claiming they were invalid) rather than actually fighting the case. They really are at the pinnacle of the BSing

  • by Overly Critical Guy ( 663429 ) on Monday April 11, 2011 @04:07PM (#35785312)

    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.

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

    by brennz ( 715237 ) on Monday April 11, 2011 @04:35PM (#35785622)

    The truth of the matter is more simple.

    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.

    DOI determined they would add in their own unique security requirements for a yet-unbuilt cloud solution that had never been certified for FISMA. Basically a joke of a to-be solution.

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11, 2011 @04:47PM (#35785744)

    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.

  • by Overly Critical Guy ( 663429 ) on Monday April 11, 2011 @04:53PM (#35785832)

    According to the court papers, filed in opposition to Google, Microsoft is not lying here.


    Hello, anonymous Google supporter who shows up in every article. The information is in a statement from the Department of Justice in the court briefing []. It's not an allegation or statement of opinion; Google really doesn't have the FISMA certification they claimed they did. Microsoft further made the point in the linked article that if the FISMA certification for Google Apps Premier applied to Google Apps for Government, Google wouldn't be applying for another certification specifically for Google Apps for Government.

Would you people stop playing these stupid games?!?!?!!!!