Feeds

back to article Oracle sued for alleged fraud against US gov

The US Justice Department has sued Oracle, claiming the software giant overcharged the federal government by "tens of millions of dollars". The complaint against Oracle was originally filed by an Oracle employee, who alleged that large discounts offered to other customers were hidden from government agencies. Paul Frascella — …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

this don't smell right

if everybody gets a discount on the price of a product then it's not a discount, it's the normal selling price.

If a company doesn't offer a discount that's not fraud. Failing to disclose details of what other clients have paid for the product isn't fraud either. That's good comercial sense., and even privacy. You don't go disclosing what your other customer have paid for your products.

At the end of the day, the DoJ paid the price it did because it was willing to do so. They didn't have to go with Oracle, there's plenty of other large relational database products out there.

If the DoJ bargaining team isn't up to the job of good negotiations over the price they paid, then that's their fault, and given they're a government agency with government money to burn, I very much doubt the employees in the DoJ could have cared less about what price they're paying..it's someone elses money..the tax payer, and it's easy to make the tax payer cough-up...just increase taxes.

This sounds like a personal grudge on the part of an ex-Oracle employee that for some reason wants to get his own back on his former employee , either that or he wants to impress his new employer so much and justify his over inflated salary.

0
2
Anonymous Coward

Read it

According to court documents filed with the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Oracle was required — under General Service Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contracts — to offer the government the "best price given to the most favored customer".

I guess you did not scroll down far enough to read this.

3
0

this don't smell right

if everybody gets a discount on the price of a product then it's not a discount, it's the normal selling price.

If a company doesn't offer a discount that's not fraud. Failing to disclose details of what other clients have paid for the product isn't fraud either. That's good comercial sense., and even privacy. You don't go disclosing what your other customer have paid for your products.

At the end of the day, the DoJ paid the price it did because it was willing to do so. They didn't have to go with Oracle, there's plenty of other large relational database products out there.

If the DoJ bargaining team isn't up to the job of good negotiations over the price they paid, then that's their fault, and given they're a government agency with government money to burn, I very much doubt the employees in the DoJ could have cared less about what price they're paying..it's someone elses money..the tax payer, and it's easy to make the tax payer cough-up...just increase taxes.

This sounds like a personal grudge on the part of an Oracle employee that for some reason wants to get his own back on employee (soon to be ex-employee?)

0
3
FAIL

So many mistakes, so few words

Wow, I had no idea it was possible to so badly misunderstand a story in so few words. Congratulations, TkH11.

First, the ENTIRE POINT OF THE STORY is that the price WAS NOT NEGOTIATED. The GSA MAS schedule exists precisely to allow government departments to buy products and services from a "catalog" of pre-approved items WITHOUT having to go through tedious, expensive, time-consuming negotiations each time nor for every government purchasing department to need to employ experienced negotiators. Vendors can choose to participate in it if they promise that the government will get the same price as the "most favored" customer -- and generally speaking, vendors fall over themselves to get included.

Second, it's not the DoJ that bought the software; it's many government projects. The DoJ is suing on behalf of them. So you get a big fat FAIL on the reading comprehension part of the test.

Third, the government didn't pay the price it did because it was "willing"; it paid the price it did because it had been guaranteed by legally-binding contract that it was getting the best possible price.

But you know, don't let actual facts or understanding get in the way of your internal "guvmint is teh stoopid" narrative.

3
0
FAIL

See Icon

But it was the best possible price.... for Oracle.

The favoured supplier crap is just the Sir Humphries excuse for not negotiating contracts. Sir Humphrey doesn’t do his/her job and its somebody else’s fault.

0
0
Bronze badge

fraud?

I thought that fraud was a criminal matter, not a civil matter. That's quite a big difference over whether this was a deliberate conspiracy or failing to meet the terms of a contract without criminal intent.

0
0

Hmmm

50/50 Cock-up over conspiracy.

You have to wonder how easy it is for one sales division to know what another is actually doing. Equally you can imagine the man at the top saying keep this deal secret.

Best possible rates can be a real problem. If you cut to win one deal, then you have to for others, doesn't really matter too much for product, but for consultancy and development rates it's a real show stopper. Quote a low rate to get you in the door with one part of government and you'll find others want the same rate.

0
0
Paris Hilton

No, conspiracy over cockup

No, you don't have to wonder whether it's "easy". If you can't do it, don't sign up for a program that requires you to do it.

Most-favored Customer pricing is a contractual obligation freely entered into by the vendor when they choose to participate in the GSA MAS. If a company doesn't have the internal controls in place to ensure that it complies with the legal obligations that it opted in to, it shouldn't sign up for GSA MAS. Simple as that.

Oh, and somehow many, many companies do manage to comply not only with GSA MAS but with far more complicated rules, both internal and external, about discounting processes, approvals, revenue recognition, etc. See, they have these magical things called "computers" that run things called "databases" that keep track of orders and prices... you should look into that, it's pretty interesting stuff.

/Paris, because it's complicated

0
0
Paris Hilton

Hmmm, interesting!

From a UK perspective it seems that procurement staff using public funds did not quite get the bargain they sought (we can only imagine the factors that made it so?)

Sometime later, based on insider information, procurement staff realised their mistakes then seek to proportion blame and responsibility on to provider that they shook hands with on the deal?

Then blame to preferred provider?

Ouch baby ouch!

0
0
Silver badge
Happy

Oh how familiar

Happens every where and I suppose the logic is that the state is our anyway and they are robbing us too.

0
0
FAIL

Ummmm, don't Oracle make databases????

Or do they just not use them? Maybe they still use Informix 4GL.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.