Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Cloud Microsoft The Courts

Judge Temporarily Blocks Microsoft Pentagon Cloud Contract After Amazon Suit (cnbc.com) 59

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
A judge ordered Thursday a temporary block on the JEDI cloud contract in response to a suit filed by Amazon. From a report: A court notice announcing the injunction was filed on Thursday, but wasn't public. It's unclear why the documents were sealed. In April, the Defense Department announced that Amazon and Microsoft were the two finalists to provide the contract, ruling out other contenders like IBM and Oracle. Then in July, President Donald Trump said he was looking into the contract after IBM and other companies protested the bidding process. Microsoft was awarded the contract on Oct. 25. Amazon has been protesting the move, saying that it was driven in part by President Trump's bias against the company. Trump often criticizes Amazon and its CEO Jeff Bezos, who also owns The Washington Post, claiming the newspaper unfairly covers his administration. Last month, Amazon's cloud-computing arm AWS filed a formal motion asking the court to pause Microsoft's work on the JEDI cloud contract, claiming the evaluation process included "clear deficiencies, errors and unmistakable bias." The court granted that motion on Thursday.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Temporarily Blocks Microsoft Pentagon Cloud Contract After Amazon Suit More

Judge Temporarily Blocks Microsoft Pentagon Cloud Contract After Amazon Suit

Comments Filter:

  • Realistically, who should get the contract? Ideally, if there was some sense to this, it would be multiple cloud providers, likely Amazon, MS, and a third, perhaps Oracle, IBM, or Google.

    This way, if one cloud provider decided to just give the middle finger to the US and cut all access, it would sting, but all wouldn't be lost, especially if all eggs were in one basket.

    • Shouldn't the Defense Department build their own system? Why are they relying on a commercial service? What's next? Deploying troops overseas by using Delta Airlines?

      • Ya if the DOD builds its own system from the ground up it will only take 10 years and 10 billion dollars. Great point!
        • no it would be 10 years and probabl 2-300billion $. Remember every time gov does something it takes a lot longer and cost a massive f-ton more.

        • What if the DoD specified the system, and patriot Americans wrote it for them as (secret) open source? Would that work? Surely they can do code maintenance on a budget, right? And they know how to audit things?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        That would be full Ada like and actually work.
        Thats billions in billable contractor support payments lost if the system works due to the gov/mil using its own experts.
        Think of the good paying private sector jobs last in some states if the code actually worked and only needed a few average wage gov/mil experts doing their day jobs to service?
        Thats a loss of billions in billable contractor support time lost to working, tested code and good staff.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *

        Deploying troops overseas by using Delta Airlines?

        Back in the cold war the plan to get troops to Europe to halt a Warsaw Pact advance as fast as possible was to seize all commercial aircraft and use them to ferry troops... so Delta is not so far fetched as you'd think.

      • Lack of skilled people working for the DoD, and I say that as someone who has spent almost my entire 30 year career as a DoD employee or contractor.
        Also cost. There was a cloud contract before this that was run by the government. The costs of it was ridiculous.
      • Commandeering all needed commercial transport aircraft for rapid deployment of US troops to Europe for WWIII was a key component of the REFORGER (RE-inFORCE GERmany) Exercises and ops plans during the cold war. The focus of the Airforce's fleet of aircraft would be moving equipment and supplies for those troops, the passenger transport would rely on civilian passenger transport aircraft.

        So Yes.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Re "all eggs were in one basket."
      How about all the experts around the USA who actually want to work for the US mil? Who actually like the USA?
      Do it as a US mil project using contractors as the US mil wants. People who like the US mil and who want to work for the US mil..
      People who want the best for the US mil and who want the USA to always win.

      Not via international staff at some ad company, computer game company, consumer OS company, box factory, server farm.
      Recall the problems the UK/US had with to
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • I heard of a new company, very interested in this (Score:3)

    by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @03:53PM (#59725082)

    It's called Cyberdyne Systems.

    • I've also heard about them. You shouldn't sign any contract with them, their only goal is to replace all jobs with robots.

      • That is what DOD wants an army of robots. Makes it a lot easier to have troops overseas, nobody worries if a few T101s get blown up in Afghanistan. To protect the data center from becoming a target we need to make each T101 independent with it's own AI taking orders from no one but just carrying out it's mission without contact back to home base.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      MS experts in the cloud floating your war ship, flying your jet, networking commands to the drone.
      Ensuring the expert contractors are sent to the correct port when the nuclear sub returns and needs servicing.
  • Basic rule of business: don't shit talk the CEO of a client, certainly don't make a newspaper to slander them across a wider audience.

    Aside from the fact Amazon is too big to be given more opportunities (to say nothing about their abysmal practices as an employer, making every bit of business they gain into a new slave sector,) Trump is the CEO of the US, Bezos wants a contract with the US - this is like a kid-level tier of basic competence he failed at.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The US Government is not something that is allowed to be run for the benefit of the US President - this is why offices such as the GAO exist, to ensure US Government expenditure is fair and unbiased.

      Bezos can shitpost all he wants about Trump, or anyone else in the government, and it should not matter at all when one of his companies bids for a government contract.

      The Office of President is not a play thing, the holder of that office is not there to settle scores or use their power to punish people they do

      • You know if you put it to the company analogy then that would be No. Now lets say it is possible that Trump did interfere, why is that bad. He considers the vendor AWS to be an enemy of his and hence the country (he is the elected leader of the country, even if some don't like that fact) also he determines what the country does, he is accountable of course in November. If it were Huawei that the DOD selected and Trump just said no choose someone else and they are not aligned with the countries interests the

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by im_thatoneguy ( 819432 )

          He considers the vendor AWS to be an enemy of his and hence the country

          *PULLS LEVER ON BLEACH SHOWER*

          Trump's personal enemies are not "hence the country's" personal enemies. If Trump murdered a hooker and dumped the body, the Washington DC Detective investigating the case would be Trump's Enemy and by definition of purging a murderer from high office... a hero to the country not the enemy of the people.

          Just because you're elected doesn't mean you can do anything you want for 4 years. If Trump was elected and then offered a deal to North Korea that he would offer 30 million

        • You know if you put it to the company analogy then that would be No. Now lets say it is possible that Trump did interfere, why is that bad. He considers the vendor AWS to be an enemy of his and hence the country (he is the elected leader of the country, even if some don't like that fact) also he determines what the country does, he is accountable of course in November.

          Congratulations. I thought I had read it all...I thought nothing could shock me. That is the most horrifying thing I've ever read on slashdot....because I think you actually believe it. I think you actually believe Trump's ego is in the nation's best interest. Trump is here to serve the United States, not vice versa. He's my president too and needs to represent my interests as much as his base's...don't you every fucking forget that....if Bernie or Pete gets elected, I would be equally horrified if the

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by cusco ( 717999 )

            they report facts

            Except for Fox News, which has gone to court to proclaim that its reporting is "entertainment" and not news so they can make up whatever they want. That they won, and then won on appeal, is appalling.

    • Re:Bezos is a Retard (Score:5, Insightful)

      by slack_justyb ( 862874 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @05:53PM (#59725680)

      Trump is the CEO of the US

      Any person who has had any kind of lesson in civics would indicate that this statement right here is enough to send any decent person running to wash themselves in boiling bleach after reading.

      Basic rule of business: don't shit talk the CEO of a client, certainly don't make a newspaper to slander them across a wider audience.

      Basic rule of a functioning government of free people. Your citizens are free to mound piles and piles of shit talking points at you. At the end of the day, you have to do what is best for the benefit of society, not because you're thin skinned. That's not to say that Trump isn't doing that, but it is that your point is 100% anti free speech. Those running the nation can't hold some citizens shit talking as reasons to deprive citizens, full stop. Maybe might have an argument for foreigners or whatever, but actual 100% legal citizens of your own damn country. No, that's just some burn the first amendment level shittalking that all this Trump doublespeak has got you thinking is a logical conclusion.

      Citizens are always going to talk shit about their leaders, that's just the name of the game. The leaders have to elevate themselves above that or not run for office. Anything less than that, isn't a free country. Citizens get to have the most power here, not the leaders. That's why thinking the President is the CEO of anything is antithetical to an actual free country.

    • Trump is the CEO of the US,

      Trump is the public servant of the US citizens not our ruler. Thinking he's the CEO or Lord of the US and not a servant is why this lawsuit exists. The police chief isn't supposed to go on TV and say that they're going to punish a newspaper because they reported on corrupt cops taking bribes and framing innocent people.

  • Sue the entity that you sent a bid to for not picking you? What the hell is wrong with society. Last time I checked being an idiot and having bias is part of being a buyer. How could they possibly know everything that went into a decision they aren't part of. Does amazon have both bids themselves, do they have a government informant for the process, do they even know all the true goals, deadlines, and priorities of the buyer? Can we not sue people for not buying a product?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      When I was evaluating bids we were very careful to have justifiable reasons for our selection, and I don't see why a larger bid process should be less careful.

      OTOH, I'm not surprised that many of the documents were sealed, because they could reveal significant business "secrets". (Most of those secrets aren't really secret, but they are legally such, so you've got to protect them.)

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close