Judge Dismisses Oracle Lawsuit Over $10 Billion Pentagon JEDI Cloud Contract (techcrunch.com) 25
Last year, Oracle filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government complaining about the procurement process around the Pentagon's $10 billion, decade-long JEDI cloud contract. "They claimed a potential conflict of interest on the part of a procurement team member (who was a former AWS employee)," reports TechCrunch. "Today, that case was dismissed in federal court." From the report: In dismissing the case, Federal Claims Court Senior Judge Eric Bruggink ruled that the company had failed to prove a conflict in the procurement process, something the DOD's own internal audits found in two separate investigations. Judge Bruggink ultimately agreed with the DoD's findings: "We conclude as well that the contracting officer's findings that an organizational conflict of interest does not exist and that individual conflicts of interest did not impact the procurement, were not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record is therefore denied."
Today's ruling opens the door for the announcement of a winner of the $10 billion contract, as early as next month. The DoD previously announced that it had chosen Microsoft and Amazon as the two finalists for the winner-take-all bid.
Today's ruling opens the door for the announcement of a winner of the $10 billion contract, as early as next month. The DoD previously announced that it had chosen Microsoft and Amazon as the two finalists for the winner-take-all bid.
Re: Hello (Score:1)
Oracle is hot garbage. Even twenty years ago, their model was cheap sales and lol get fucked or pay a shitload if you want support a couple years in. Those fuckers made me angry when I was a peon in IT trying to deal with getting security patches for one of the biggest companies in the world. And they get wrecked now that I make decisions.
Re: (Score:1)
It's a conflict of interest not to put $10 billion of taxpayer money into Larry Ellison's pockets, of course.
If his lawyers had a bit more time, they'd have argued it was downright unconstitutional.
The DOD already knows what Oracle would do to them (Score:2, Informative)
Oracle left many turds in previous projects with the Government. The pentagon does not want to clean up Oracle doo-doo anymore.
Sucked in Oracle is all I can say (Score:3)
Maybe Oracle should try innovation rather than law suits as a way to make a buck.
Re: (Score:2)
This
Re:Sucked in Oracle is all I can say (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe Oracle should try innovation rather than law suits as a way to make a buck.
It has worked for them so far. Why change a successful business model?
Re: (Score:1)
It isn't a pentagon contract if I recall. One of those three letter branches is footing the bill.
I know it is hard to understand, but the reality is the president isn't actually involved in every motion of the government. When the DMV screws up it is probably not because of the president.
The contract itself has had some forward progress because it used to be only an AWS contract.
With that said, every cloud service is vendor lock in... there are some nuances between the two and it takes years to really make
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sucked in Oracle is all I can say (Score:5, Interesting)
On one hand, it's sad to see that if it's happening. On the other hand, Oracle has fucked up so many government contracts that it's stupid to even allow them to bid any more, they fuck up everything they touch. On the gripping hand, if Oracle wants people to care about what happens to them, they need to not be complete shitlords.
Oracle does not deserve anyone's business in any context, full stop. Fuck Oracle, fuck Larry, and fuck the horse that rode in on them both.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with attempts to control the corruption that stems from the revolving door problem is that we cannot stop the revolving door without causing two problems:
1. How do we get experts on an industry into government, if we do not get them from the industry in question?
2. If we prevent people from leaving positions as government regulators and returning to jobs in the industries they were regulating, we would be preventing them from working in their areas of expertise. Who would serve under these cond
Re: (Score:2)
1. How do we get experts on an industry into government, if we do not get them from the industry in question?
Let them in, but don't let them go back. If they want to go back to the private sector, they have to go into a different industry. It's a hassle, but something must be done.
Lobbying I think we could do without- it is nothing but legalized corruption.
It's the contributions that are the problem, not the lobbying.