US Sues Oracle Over Alleged Overcharging 164
CWmike writes "Oracle is being sued by the US government for allegedly overcharging it by millions of dollars, according to documents on file in US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The US General Services Administration's Schedules are supposed to provide discounts that are as good as or better than that given to the vendor's most favored customers, the complaint states. However, Oracle employee Paul Frascella, who joins the government's action, learned that Oracle was finding ways around the GSA restrictions in order to give commercial customers even deeper discounts, according to the complaints. In one alleged practice Oracle was said to be 'selling to a reseller at a deep discount ... and having the reseller sell the product to the end user at a price below the written maximum allowable discounts,' the complaint states. Overall, Oracle's actions cost US taxpayers 'tens of millions of dollars,' it adds."
Wait a minute (Score:2)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
They are suing Oracle because Oracle gave someone else a better price?
They are suing Oracle because Oracle gave someone else a better price despite being contractually bound not to.
Don't like it? Don't agree to it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
My company sells a healthcare related product (my opinions are my own and not the company's, yadda yadda). We have a similar obligation to the government, we have agreed to give them the best possible price, and we may never sell it for less than that amount without discounting the price sold to the government as well.
A data entry error a few years ago led to a major distributor getting a trivially better price (somthing like $0.01) than the government. Two different promotions overlapped with each other
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
They demanded, and Oracle agreed. On paper.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Interesting)
I, as a customer, can be as demanding as I want.
I expect my government to be very demanding of the suppliers it uses.
The supplier is free to choose not to do business with a demanding customer.
Is it so hard to understand?
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the government is intrinsically evil, anything it does that a corporation doesn't like is communism. Therefore, their deal with Oracle couldn't possibly be legit, even if Oracle signed.
However, because the government is intrinsically wasteful, any example of it getting a poor deal is just further evidence of how evil and wasteful it is...
You can see how this, completely internally consistent, line of reasoning leads to governance that is both inefficient and grossly expensive. Pity most of the people who articulate it aren't joking...
Re: (Score:2)
Somalia wouldn't put up with this. They'd board Oracle's ships and hold them ransom for... one meelion dollars!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:4, Insightful)
Who says the US government is a preferred customer?
My money is on the contract Oracle negotiated that said the US Government would get discounts that were as good or better than any other Oracle customer's discount.
This isn't the gov strong arming Oracle, this is Oracle signing a contract and then looking for every way they could to avoid doing what they agreed to do.
Generally we call that a "breech of contract", and there are serious legal ramifications whether the US government is involved in the contract or not.
Or, to put it more simply, fucking read you dumbass.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:4, Informative)
Generally we call that a "breech of contract"
Impromptu feghoot:
I found a pair of pants in a store that were very comfortable and stylish, and immediately appealed to my tastes. I took them to the front counter, where the shop owner was checking out the customers, and he said, "Okay, I'll sell you these pants very cheap, but you must agree to never, ever wear them on a Sunday." Without even really thinking about it, I signed the form, and took the pants home.
Well, I often wore them throughout the week, and I got a lot of compliments about the pants. They quickly became a staple of my wardrobe. But I hadn't worn them on a Sunday yet---so one day, figuring the old shopkeeper wasn't really going to hold me to it if I put the damn things on any day of the week I pleased, I pulled them out of my closet and got into them.
Just as soon as I had zipped up the zipper, suddenly, the pants started getting tighter. At first it was just uncomfortable, and I wondered if they had shrunk in the wash. But then it became painful, and I could barely move or breathe. My life flashed before my eyes. I felt like I was having the life literally squeezed out of me.
I stumbled over to the phone and called the store---which was fortunately open on Sundays. The owner picked up the phone. "Hello," he said.
"Pants...too...tight...." I wheezed.
"You're going to have to cut them off," he said flatly. "Don't expect me to help. It's Sunday."
"Why...are...pants...crushing....me."
"Well, you read the deal, didn't you? You're wearing them on a Sunday. It's a Breech of Contract."
Ba-dum-cha!
Re: (Score:2)
Breech is a pun, dumbass!
Re: (Score:2)
Because if they say no, then ALL government agencies are not only free to choose any other database company on the GSA schedule, it'll become harder for them to buy Oracle at any price if its not on the Schedule.
We've already established the government market for Oracle or something like it is more than tens of millions of dollars.
Just to demonstrate I priced a monster server a few years back, on the vendor's website where I specced it out it cost $40k, using our Blanket Purchase Agreement with the same ven
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
"This is why most companies don't like dealing with the government"
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
One of my parents was a government contracts attorney, who did it professionally and taught it part time at local law schools.
Nobody likes the US Government as a customer. It's by far the most annoying customer for any tech company. The contracts will be 2-10x as hard to administer, 2-10x as much overhead as commercial contracts, and you get sued a lot more (usually over the proposals/bidding, but it's still a suit).
Re: (Score:2)
Then why are all the companies which complain still taking those govt contracts?
Re: (Score:2)
Two words: cash cow.
That's all the public sector is in the private sector's eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if Oracle had contracts with a private corporation to give them the best deals, and that private corporation found out that Oracle wasn't holding up to their end of the bargain, they would never sue, right?
It's only because they were dealing with the big evil government that they had to actually stick to their contractual obligations.
And if the government was found to be overcharged without doing anything about it, citizens would never object, right?
The government has the reputation for never being efficient or controlling costs. Whenever the government tries to become more efficient and more cost effective, we need to encourage that! (Assuming it doesn't mean taking away our rights)
Re: (Score:2)
The government controls cost very well, and is less wasteful then most corporation.
Spend time reading budgets reports for both of them for a while.
The government doesn't have near the wast any large corporation has.
This is simple breech of contract, and since Oracle can't make side contracts the the CEO to look the other way, they are getting sued.
Re: (Score:2)
The government controls cost very well, and is less wasteful then most corporation.
Spend time reading budgets reports for both of them for a while.
The government doesn't have near the wast any large corporation has.
This is simple breech of contract, and since Oracle can't make side contracts the the CEO to look the other way, they are getting sued.
The post office was loosing money while FedEx and UPS were not. Medicare and Social Security are not money makers, either, yet the company that does my 401K and my insurance are. (And my insurance covers me better than my mom's medicare covers her. I haven't retired yet so I can't compare her social security to my 401K.)
Re: (Score:2)
However, there are also little facts like FedEx and UPS aren't required to run offices in every city, regardless of them being extremely small population areas where they are losing money.
I'm not saying that USPS couldn't be run any better, but they are expected (and mandated) to meet certain requirements that the private shipping companies don't have to.
Re: (Score:2)
However, there are also little facts like FedEx and UPS aren't required to run offices in every city, regardless of them being extremely small population areas where they are losing money.
Wouldn't that be considered wasteful?
I know it sucks being in a small town that only gets a ups/fedex run once or twice a week, but you learn to plan around that.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it wasteful? That's a matter of opinion. If you live in a normal sized city, then you probably think so. If you are one of the few people who are heavily reliant on a rural post office, then you probably do not.
You get less efficiency for the money when providing utilities, health services, and schools to very rural areas too, but I wouldn't call it wasteful.
Re: (Score:2)
Medicare and Social Security should not be money makers but money givers. I heard one of Medicare or Medicaid had a 2% administrative overhead; given its purpose that is good. Please feel free to use private insurance if you want to sponsor CEO golf trips to Dubai.
Re: (Score:2)
As I mentioned, I have better coverage with my private insurance (and I am a call center employee, not someone in upper management) than my mom does with her medicare.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oracle is breaching a contract. It's really that simple. The government is doing right.
" More citizens have been killed by their OWN government, than by foreign invasion"
nonsense. Stop being stupid.
Re:Right... (Score:4, Interesting)
When you factor in wide-scale devastation from failed 5-year plans and "great leaps forward" and all that crap, you come with something in the neighborhood of 100 million dead from their own Communist regimes. When over 30 million Chinese starve due to poor planning by Mao's government, that's still 30 million Chinese that died because of their government, even if they weren't shot.
Also, when you count up ever execution, every criminal or innocent person shot-on-entry by door-storming SWAT teams or even just regular cops in the line of duty, etc, etc., then I'm pretty sure we're way past the GP's claim being nonsense. Just saying.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"" More citizens have been killed by their OWN government, than by foreign invasion""
I'm not about to sit down and start researching - but GP's statement is probably correct. Today, N. Korea seems to casually condemn it's villagers to starvation each winter, after ensuring that all the crops have been harvested for use by the government. Pol Pot. The Soviet. Idi Amin. Saddam Hussein. The list goes on and on.
The casualties due to both actively hunting down people, and due to gross neglect, added togeth
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know how you can study the last 3000 years of history, and conclude government is not evil. More citizens have been killed by their OWN government, than by foreign invasion, even inside Democracies.
This might come as a bit of a shocker to you, but governments are run by humans.
Some humans are kind and benevolent. Some are ruthless, tyrannical, and evil. Some have good intentions but still manage to botch things along the way.
Of course governments have been responsible for some terrible things, but it's only when they are in the position to. The same thing has been true for individuals, warlords, cult leaders, churches, corporations, etc.
The good or evil that they produce has nothing intrinsically t
Re: (Score:2)
But government can because government is not bound by contractual obligations. The paper means nothing.
You truly are a moron. Many people have said it before, including in reply to this post, but it bears repeating again.
Oracle broke the fucking contract. Oracle and the government both agreed to a contract, and Oracle ignored the terms of that contract. I'll bet you think it's acceptable when a corporation does that to an individual too.
Re: (Score:2)
Loss leaders are unethical anyway. Even at Walmart. Sure, it's accepted practice these days, but what do loss leaders really do? They are tremendous aids in running the competition out of business. Walmart has lost suits to pharmacies all over the country - but they haven't been penalized enough to end the practice.
If Oracle is using loss leaders to attract business, be assured that they are unfairly undercutting the competition.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be willing bet big money that Oracle isn't the first. Being a former sales engineer in the enterprise software space, there are some big discounts that can be implemented for certain deals that can make or break a quarter.
Interesting how an Oracle employee is a whistleblower in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
According to Safra Catz they did this out of stupidity ""Integrity matters... Don't be afraid to look stupid over integrity."
http://www.examiner.com/x-43195-SF-Technology-Examiner~y2010m5d11-Oracle-President-Safra-Catz-shares-wisdom-at-PBWC-Annual-Conference [examiner.com]
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That however doesn't seem to apply for most companies though. Dell's systems are more expensive for government than list price for home users, Microsoft licensing is more expensive compared to enterprise customers. All of it is just a difference in the way they package the products and they simply won't offer the cheaper option to government customers and vice versa. Oracle just made a mistake in packaging their products for government customers.
And it's understandable that companies do this. If you sell so
Re: (Score:2)
Did you actually read the books, or just watch the TV series? because if you were a reader you'd know that it isn't Vogon's, its Vogons. And yes, I know that the book was an adaptation of the radio play, but that's not important.
I wish more people would read more books. Too much internet gives you some bad habits.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Informative)
Yes.
There's a law called the "Truth in Negotiations Act", "TINA" for short, which essentially states that when bidding on a government contract, if you can do the job for less than you bid it for you have broken the law. The bid discloses estimated profits, and the government goes along with varying rates of profit, but if your profit is bigger than you disclose, and it's because you put in a cost item that your company (not just the department doing the bidding, to prevent firewalling to induce uncertainty) knew it could do cheaper (not that it was doing it cheaper), then you are deemed to have ripped off the government knowingly.
I'd love to see a similar law passed for consumer transactions.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd love to see a similar law passed for consumer transactions.
I can't see why this isn't the law for medical care. If a procedure costs $50 to do, and you charge $75 for insurance company X or $400 for an uninsured person, then you should go to jail.
Re: (Score:2)
ok so this is the second most insightful post in years...
preferred customer status is bullshit... everyone should be paying the same price for the same product (at the same time)....
treat it like the equity markets handle things.
that said, they could also argue they can't do the job for the government for a better price. They are only able to offer some small company a break because they can afford to eat that loss in exchange for service contracts and future sales... the government case is the future sale
Re: (Score:2)
preferred customer status is bullshit... everyone should be paying the same price for the same product (at the same time)....
Right, just like when you buy a car?
There is a reason why software companies employ armies of salesmen - their principle job to sell their widget for as much money as they can get for it. A salesman does not transact a product - he sells it just like a stock is traded on an exchange. Supply, demand, emotion all apply for sales transactions. You might find a better price elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Insurance companies typically have a contractual agreement to pay the healthcare provider a percentage of the areas "Usual And Customary" fees. The insurance determines what the UAC should be by averaging the areas billed fees, so if I'm healthcare provider and I want to receive $80.00 for a procedure, I charge $100.00 for it to get the $80.00 paid to me. The magic word "accepted" mean the healthcare provider has to eat the $20.00 as a write-off, with out it the patient pays the $20.00. If your a cash patie
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
WTF? The guiding principle in government contracts should be to get the lowest practical price, not the lowest theoretical price. Otherwise the result would be that many companies will not care to bid for the government.
My first job was in detailing cost estimates for a company that custom built heavy mechanical equipment. One rule there was that for any government job the cost would be higher. T
Re:Wait a minute (Score:4, Interesting)
WTF? The guiding principle in government contracts should be to get the lowest practical price, not the lowest theoretical price. Otherwise the result would be that many companies will not care to bid for the government.
The guiding principle is that the government get the best combination of price, schedule, and quality. There is no theory in the TINA pricing. The company is required to say "our costs will be X and our profit Y to deliver Z to you when you want it." The government "allows" only a certain amount of profit on a contract. If you make more, perhaps a component's cost goes down hugely in the market, you are required to go back to the gov't and allow them a rebate on their cost. If you make more because you fudged the numbers, you get barred from federal contracts and may also end up behind bars. It is for these exact reasons that many companies don't do business with the government. I should also mention (having some experience in the process) that the companies still manage to hide an awful lot of "excess profit" and I don't feel the need to cry for them.
My first job was in detailing cost estimates for a company that custom built heavy mechanical equipment. One rule there was that for any government job the cost would be higher. There's so much paperwork involved in government jobs that it's impossible to do it at the same price you charge private companies.
Don't have a GSA Schedule Contract [fedmarket.com], then. Trust me, those vendors who have them are happy to have one, but not all vendors/products work well with them. I think you're confusing contracting with the government in general with having a Most Favored Customer agreement with them. Not all (not most?) government contracts have such a clause.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they are. Who wouldn't be happy to sell a toilet seat for $500? [google.com]
But if they were as honest as my former employer they would refrain from getting those contracts instead of doing whatever they do to sell stuff to the government. The fact is that this "Truth In Negotiations Act" is anything but. The way to circumvent it is to create new products, that
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with the $500 toilet seat argument is that occasionally a contract over-runs cost, and they approach the government and say, "We ran over cost by $X, and behind schedule by Y days." The government and the supplier have to amend the contract's line items. But let's say your contract is to remodel an entire facility, including toilet seats. Any one component of that whole contract could have cost a $49,000 over-run. Maybe the whole contract was over $1,000,000 and $49,000 ain't that much (respecti
Re: (Score:2)
I've been there, done that, and that's not the way it goes.
When a government contract is over cost and behind schedule it's because somenone found a regulation no one had realized it existed.
Something like "this should be painted in Munsell 55 grey" [wikipedia.org]. The part had been painted in exactly that color, but the paint supplier didn't have the paperwork proving that his paint wa
Re: (Score:2)
because the many-to-many relationship between a supplier's costs and the items on a contract make it difficult or impossible to assign proportional increases.
This is the part I don't follow. Using your example the overrun was 4.9%, why not just multiply every line item by 1.049 and be done with it. The dining facility would have a line item cost of $104,900, the toilet seat $10.49, a ballpoint pen $1.05. Prices look sane and the numbers come out fine (+/- a few pennies due to rounding).
Re: (Score:2)
Because the government realizes that each item didn't proportionally increase in price, etc, etc. It's just a dumb accounting thing. That's all. Accounting for large projects like this is always prone to issue, because of things like I said where, well, how finely grained do you sell the items and labor? Do you go down to the toilet seat level, or do you go up to the jet engine (or whole plane) level?
Re: (Score:2)
You can price it any way you want, subject to competition from other companies. At my last job the government was a large customer of ours, and they got a price less than a third of what we were charing almost anyone else. The reason being most private companies were buying a tenth the quantity and there are a couple other companies that will manufacture a similar product so we had to cut our margin to the bone.
I'm sure the government wastes a lot of money, but I assure you that in many cases their purcha
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see a similar law passed for consumer transactions.
Apparently you don't understand capitalism, how sad. Ignoring various other problems, seriously I could go on for pages, you'd kill investment in any remotely risky company. Congratulations. Have fun learning Chinese in 20 years. High risk requires high profits in whatever investment actually succeeds.
Let's say a group of individuals invests in into twenty new cutting edge small companies with revolutionary products. Let's say it's startups. Of those twenty, nineteen fail miserably and they lose all investm
Re: (Score:2)
... and high risk means having the balls to go bust when you fail instead of running to Mommy State for a corporate handout, like the financial industries. Or lobbying them for laws to protect your business model like the entertainment industries.
But it also means that someone else gets to do what you do but cheaper and out-compete you later on - except that is a feature the free market which is the antithesis to capitalism and profit because profits is a margin that you need to "justify" to your customer b
Re: (Score:2)
You apparently are insane and have no knowledge of economics much less what capitalism and free market actually mean (hint: they're not mutually exclusive and pretty much tied together). Also, another hint, the United States is not a purely capitalistic society. So I don't see much reason to talk to you.
I will leave you with one question, how did that other competing firm will acquire the initial money to enter the market? And why would anyone provide it to them?
Re: (Score:2)
The ideal free market is a theoretical construct where an infinite number of customers have perfect knowledge about the products of an infinite number of suppliers. In this though-scenario, all goods and services must be sold at cost simply because a profit margin is a margin a competitor can undercut.
Profit is therefore a sign of an imperfect market. Which basically is what we must have, since the perfect free market is merely a theoretical construct. Suppliers and customers are finite and information is i
Re: (Score:2)
You can make the same demands for any vendor you want. The vendor doesn't have to accept them and can take their business elsewhere.
The government spends a lot of money, they can make demands like that. Just like any large organization
can.
Re: (Score:2)
In order to get on the GSA sched's, you have to provide a price for your product, to the gov't that is considered fair. Otherwise, this happens.
Re: (Score:2)
If you live in the US or are a citizen, that's YOUR money Oracle is stealing and you're defending Oracle?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry, I just can't believe Oracle would overcharge anybody ;-)
Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
- loses $25 billion (Yep, lost as in nobody knows what happened to it. Yep, $25 billion)- google "Unreconciled Transactions Affecting the Change in Net Position" section in the Treasury Dept financial report
- wastes $60 billion [senate.gov] annually on Medicare fraud. Just wait until Obamacare kicks in.
- spends at
Re: (Score:2)
You had interesting information in your post, but when I saw the word "Obamacare", my Glenn Beck automated filter kicked in. Try to keep the useless talking points phrases out of it next time, and perhaps your information won't be lost in the noise.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20007679-503544.html [cbsnews.com]
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1914973,00.html [time.com]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208383695408513.html [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps not a dirty word, but I've never heard it used in a positive or respectful fashion. Perhaps that's just my own bias from observation, I stand corrected. In any event, I did appreciate the information in your post...
Re: (Score:2)
Calling something Obamacare, Hillarycare, etc, is a method of critiquing it and assigning a name.
No one wants to fight "Universal Health Care". That sounds amazing! (That's not what we got in the bill, but sort of close enough.)
But hey, call something Obamacare, when your constituents and supporters already dislike Obama, and the transitive property of dislike transfers over. Of course, to people who support the health care reform, they don't know why it's called Obamacare, because so many different pieces
Re: (Score:2)
Wonder what the opponents of "Obamacare" in the general public would say if it failed and they went to a private insurance company and got "Don't Care" instead... amazing how the Average Joe can be turned into a stooge for a lobby like that.
Re: (Score:2)
That means the accounting did not add up, it probably does not mean that somebody got away with $25 billion in diamonds or something.
How much do private insurers lose to insurance fraud?
Re: (Score:2)
wastes $60 billion [senate.gov] annually on Medicare fraud.
I was surprised by that figure - losing $60 billion to fraud on $600 billion (roughly) total spending? That's damn scary, and would mean that one dollar out of every ten was being paid out for fraudulent claims.
Fortunately, I read the linked press release. The actual quote is:
First,
Re: (Score:2)
Back when I was in the Air Force, eliminating "Fraud Waste and Abuse" were popular buzzwords for about a year or two. It was a federal government-wide initiative to eliminate, well, Fraud Waste and Abuse. No-one could ever really define (except in the broadest terms) what that really meant, but it made them feel like they were doing something to reduce government spending.
It's entirely possible all the numbers cited in that article were pulled wholesale out of someone's ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Every government agency has an Inspector General who's job it is to seek out Fraud, Waste and Abuse. Of these folks that I have met, most are very sincere about their jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't in one hand Bitch about government debt, and then in the next, go off about "its only 25 Million".. Seriously. Stop getting your math lessons from Politcal hacks on TV.
I really can't afford to purchase this widget, but really, its only $50, and between my mortgage and student loans and credit cards, I have a huge amount of debt. Oh well, I guess I really don't need to bother plucking that extra $50 towards my debts.. Its too small to count..
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you are being sarcastic in your praise of the government.
I hope he's not, because this IS praiseworthy. Are you one of those people who scold their child when he does wrong, but refuses to praise him when he does right? You sound like one, because that's just what you're doing here. Yes, there are inefiencies, waste, fraud, etc in government just like in any large organization, and the bigger any company, government, or whatever is, the more waste and fraud there will be.
A good example is my local po
Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
I am glad that there are some places where people are looking out for these kinds of things in the gov't though, it gives some bright hope that things can be done properly rather than as lazily as humanly possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what makes you think this wasn't pork to begin with?
I agree with the GP commenter... you will only save money a few million at a time this way, but put a few of these kinds of efforts together and you will see a big change. Give credit w
Re: (Score:2)
A proper budget for one person, a family, or a nation of hundreds of millions still boils down to one simple thing. Don't spend more than you have. If you fail at that, nothing else matters because it's a bad budget.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, in pork it doesn't matter only at what level the agency/etc. buys something, it matters also to whom that contract goes.
Tens of Millions? (Score:2)
That's still better than the tens of trillions of dollars US Politicians cost the taxpayer.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You're correct. Politicians are responsible for the allocation of the government's budget, the revenue from which is largely derived from taxes.
Your point?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd blame that on shoddy loans issued by investment bankers, while politicians are more or less in charge of covering up the mess.
The only flaw in that is that the US already owed the 10s of trillions long before the bailouts even started.
Re: (Score:2)
The small db company doesn't start out by selling their product to the US government perhaps?
how does it lower the barrier of entry for the giants though?
Re: (Score:2)
time to change to another Oracle product (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it'll make Monty even more butthurt than he already?
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Use PostgreSQL.
Right.... (Score:5, Insightful)
'tens of millions of dollars,' (Score:3, Insightful)
And now, we can add $10m more for the costs associated with a long, protracted trial, and all the associated appeals.
Re: (Score:2)
Better that, than demonstrating that the law has no teeth; that would just open the flood gates to further abuse.
Let's be clear: Oracle cheated the US. If the evidence is valid, they are not going to gain anything by dragging out the trial, if they are even allowed to. Hopefully the jugement will also include some hefty punitive damages as well, as this should be not be tolerated.
Aside from Government Contracts (Score:2)
Has oracle not screwed anyone they do business with?
No, not a simple troll. I have had dealings with them 4 times in my career ( thankfully been able to avoid them most of the time ) and they took advantage every single time.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There's people who haven't done much business with Oracle. Some of them haven't been screwed yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh, Government contracts.... (Score:2)
choosing Oracle costs tax payers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you've experienced Oracle's "24/7/365 top-notch support," as you phrase it, you know there are certain problems it will not help you with. For example, there are known bugs, some of which cause what in Oracle jargon are called "600 errors," which means, "you're screwed, and you've lost data irretrievably." These bugs have remained unfixed for years, and no matter what kind of support you buy from Oracle, they will not fix them. Their green-eyeshade people have decreed that the cost of fixing them is n
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle's very first customer was a government agency (CIA). Many of these government customers have extremely large databases and take advantage of many features that competing databases lack or that are vendor proprietary and thus hard to replace (PL/SQL, data analytics, Oracle Text, XML support, etc). Not all Oracle applications are like this. But many are.
Software Companies Should... (Score:2)
Be required to store all license info and be audited by any customers for the licenses they own. And provide free downloads for any software they own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, Oracle is then required to offer the same reduced prices to the government -- it's part of the hypothetical three-year contract that Oracle agreed to. Oracle is free to cut their prices as much as they want for any customer they want -- but they are operating under a contract that guarantees the government gets the bes
Re: (Score:2)
You give Uncle Sam a rebate.
All business is plenty free, feel free not to take on these kinds of contracts.