Oracle To Pay US Almost $200M To Resolve False Claims Lawsuit 114
coondoggie writes "In what it says is the largest False Claims Act settlement it has ever collected, the US General Services Administration will get $199.5 million plus interest from Oracle for 'failing to meet their contractual obligations.' According to the US Department of Justice, 'the settlement resolves allegations that, in contract negotiations and over the course of the contract's administration, Oracle knowingly failed to meet its contractual obligations to provide GSA with current, accurate and complete information about its commercial sales practices, including discounts offered to other customers, and that Oracle knowingly made false statements to GSA about its sales practices and discounts.'"
If only they would think twice next time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, this business practice indicates a financial incentive for oracle to lie to high profile clients in order to charge them extra.
If only other high profile clients would take heed of this and avoid oracle like plague, rather than thinking the practice will stop as a result of this settlement.
Business practices exist as the basis by which that company operates. Being shown to be a defrauder like this, shows that oracle relies on such practices, and are not likely to change.
(Quite frankly, given the sociopathic nature of oracle's ceo, I am not surprised by this development.)
Re:why don't we extend this principle? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Why do we allow this information to remain proprietary? Conservatives and free market folks should be up in arms, since efficient markets require information."
In practice, it's because most 'mainstream' people in the USA with any clout who describe themselves as conservatives & free markets (e.g. editorial line of the Wall Street Journal) are not actually true free marketers, instead they are class advocates for the wealthy and powerful.
Policies which get in the way of high profit margins for powerful corporations and people are disfavored, such as anti-trust regulations, or indeed any action to ensure true price-transparency and remove barriers to competitive substitution.
For instance, the Wall Street Journal editors strenuously argue against rigorous randomized controlled studies funded by Medicare which evaluate head-to-head effectiveness, risks, and cost of pharmaceuticals. Because such information in practice might result in lower pharmaceutical profitability and lower government spending.
This is how the _Economist_ differs from the _Wall Street Journal_: the first is an advocate for capitalism, the second is an advocate for wealth.