GOVERNMENT contracts are an area where taxpayers need to be served. Unlike a private unaccountable tyranny, a government is obliged to do what's best for those who elected it. Over in Switzerland, the government is still being sued for strictly requiring Microsoft software rather than specifying a required functionality and then looking at companies that provide that. We wrote about the subject in chronological order as follows:
Google wants to compete for the government contract but the Request for Quotations (RFQ) "specified that only the Microsoft Business Productivity Online Suite-Federal (BPOS-Federal) could be proposed."
Google claims that a "Limited Source Justification" directive issued by the agency's director of the Office of Acquisition and Property Management on August 30, 2010, represents single-source procurement "that is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of direction, and otherwise contrary to law."
This the second time in recent months that Google has allegedly run into this problem. The company made similar claims informally following the State of California's decision to award a hosted e-mail contract to Microsoft last month.
California officials denied Google's claims that the state's process was unfair.
Google's lawsuit against the federal government describes a courtship with DOI officials that began in June, 2009, during which, the company alleges, it received tips that Microsoft's success in the bidding process was pre-ordained.
Google has set its sights on the business of the United States government, much to the dismay of the government. The company filed a lawsuit against the Department of the Interior on Friday over its request for proposals and quotes for a system to handle messaging needs. The request stated that the solutions had to use the Microsoft Business Productivity Online Suite, a requirement that Google is saying is "unduly restrictive of competition."
I think it finally happened. We'd all been expecting it for a while now, but not quite so suddenly or emphatically: Steve Ballmer has gone completely insane. [When asked about Windows phone] Ballmer replied: "We're early; there's no question we're early. [...] I think we kind of nailed it. When you see it, you just go 'ooooh'." [...]
I suppose if we're talking geological time, then Ballmer's right, Microsoft is on the cusp of the smartphone epoch, and the dinosaurs just went for a dip in the tar pits. But in a market where a three-month-old device needs to be checked for liver spots and signs of dementia, spotting the competition three-plus years and then coming up with something that almost meets the smartphone standards set in 2007 is not exactly being early. It's certainly not "nailing" it -- unless we're talking about a coffin. [...]
In all, it seems like a fine but flawed phone. Fine but flawed isn't going to cut it. Fine but flawed doesn't win horse races. They don't put the Miss America crown on the head of the girl with pretty eyes and a nose like a rutabaga. You don't come back from the dead (or Windows Mobile 6, which is worse than being dead) and topple Apple, Google, or BlackBerry with a phone that's fine but flawed. You have to do better than that. [...]
But I'm thinking he's starting to lose it. I'm serious.
Think about it this way. You just lost the guy who was supposed to drag your company out of the last century and into the new one. He was preceded out the door by a half-dozen of your top lieutenants -- the ones who weren't already lured away by Google or Facebook. Financial analysts are asking you point blank if your company is, if not toast, then possibly a soggy bagel with mold around the edges. Despite buckets of profits, journalists are writing your obituary. [...]
At least I have my Halloween costume all set. I'm going as Frankenballmer. He's just the kind of guy you could see laughing maniacally while chasing people down the street with an axe. I can't think of anything scarier.