Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday February 16 2020, @07:01PM   Printer-friendly
from the a-new-hope dept.

Amazon wins court injunction on controversial JEDI contract:

[...] Amazon late last year filed suit against the Trump administration over the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) cloud-computing contract. Amazon last month asked the court to grant a temporary injunction halting any JEDI work while the case is pending, and today Judge Patricia Campbell-Smith agreed. Although the existence of the injunction is public, documents relating to the matter are presently sealed.

The JEDI contract is a $10 billion agreement to build a cloud computing and storage platform for use by the entire Department of Defense. Several firms were in the running for the deal, including Oracle and IBM. in April, the DoD dropped the list of finalist candidates to two: Amazon's AWS and Microsoft's Azure. AWS was widely expected to seal the deal, and so industry-watchers were surprised when in October Microsoft nabbed the contract instead.

Amazon filed suit a month later. The company argued that it didn't just lose the contract for ordinary reasons of cost or capability but was instead sabotaged for political reasons. Microsoft's win flowed from "improper pressure from President Donald J. Trump, who launched repeated public and behind-the-scenes attacks to steer the JEDI Contract away from AWS to harm his perceived political enemy—Jeffrey P. Bezos," the lawsuit argued. (Bezos is the founder of Amazon and CEO as well as owner of The Washington Post.)

Previously:


Original Submission

Related Stories

Amazon, Microsoft Wage War Over the Pentagon's "War Cloud" 18 comments

Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd

Amazon, Microsoft wage war over the Pentagon's 'war cloud':

Amazon and Microsoft are battling it out over a $10 billion opportunity to build the U.S. military its first "war cloud" computing system. But Amazon's early hopes of a shock-and-awe victory may be slipping away.

Formally called the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure plan, or JEDI, the military's computing project would store and process vast amounts of classified data, allowing the Pentagon to use artificial intelligence to speed up its war planning and fighting capabilities. The Defense Department hopes to award the winner-take-all contract as soon as August. Oracle and IBM were eliminated at an earlier round of the contract competition.

But that's only if the project isn't derailed first. It faces a legal challenge by Oracle and growing congressional concerns about alleged Pentagon favoritism toward Amazon. Military officials hope to get started soon on what will be a decade-long business partnership they describe as vital to national security.

"This is not your grandfather's internet," said Daniel Goure, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a defense-oriented think tank. "You're talking about a cloud where you can go from the Pentagon literally to the soldier on the battlefield carrying classified information."

Amazon was considered an early favorite when the Pentagon began detailing its cloud needs in 2017, but its candidacy has been marred by an Oracle allegation that Amazon executives and the Pentagon have been overly cozy. Oracle has a final chance to make its case against Amazon - and the integrity of the government's bidding process - in a court hearing Wednesday.


Original Submission

Pentagon Beams Down $10bn JEDI Contract to Microsoft: Windows Giant Beats Off Bezos 30 comments

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

Pentagon beams down $10bn JEDI contract to Microsoft: Windows giant beats off Bezos

Microsoft has been awarded the $10bn decade-long US Department of Defense JEDI IT supply contract that will see the nation's military switch to the cloud.

The Redmond giant's Azure platform will play host to the US armed forces in an attempt to overhaul and streamline the Pentagon's IT infrastructure under a single umbrella – or single point of failure, to put it another way. Microsoft share price rose on the news in after-hours trading.

"The National Defense Strategy dictates that we must improve the speed and effectiveness with which we develop and deploy modernized technical capabilities to our women and men in uniform," Dept of Defense (DoD) Chief Information Officer Dana Deasy said in announcing the award.

"The DoD Digital Modernization Strategy was created to support this imperative. This award is an important step in execution of the Digital Modernization Strategy."

The decision will no doubt come as a disappointment to Amazon Web Services (AWS), the presumed front-runner for the single-vendor deal since it was first announced.

Due to the massive requirements of the winner-takes-all contract, the security clearances required and the mandate that it go to a single provider, AWS and Microsoft were seen as the only two qualified candidates for the deal.

In awarding the contract to Microsoft, the Pentagon will avoid further allegations that it collaborated with AWS to stack the deck in its favor, a complaint which has dogged the process from its outset.


Original Submission

Pentagon's $10BN Jedi Decision 'Risky for the Country and Democracy,' Says AWS CEO Jassy 34 comments

Why was Amazon heading to court to challenge the US Department of Defense's decision to award its $10bn winner-takes-all JEDI IT project to Microsoft rather than to, well, AWS?

“We’re in the middle of an act of litigation so there’s a limited amount I can say about it, but … we feel pretty strongly that it was not adjudicated fairly,” said Jassy. “If you do a truly objective and detailed apples to apples comparison of the platforms you don’t end up in the spot where that decision was made.

“Most of our customers tell us that we’re a couple of years ahead both with regard to functionality and maturity. I think we ended up with a situation where there was significant political interference.” Jassy claimed that having “a sitting president who’s willing to share openly his disdain for a company,” namely the Jeff Bezos-owned Amazon, makes it “really difficult for government agencies including the DoD to make an objective decision without fear of reprisal.”

Bezos also owns The Washington Post, which has drawn Trump's ire in the past, as well as Amazon.

Does Jassy have a point or is this just sour grapes?


Original Submission

Sorry, Amazon, Microsoft Wins JEDI Contract Again Upon Re-Evaluation 17 comments

Sorry, Amazon, Microsoft wins JEDI contract again upon re-evaluation:

After a monthslong[sic] investigation by the Pentagon, the Department of Defense said Friday that it's sticking with Microsoft for its $10 billion cloud computing contract. And Amazon is not happy.

As a quick refresher: Microsoft was originally awarded the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure, or JEDI, contract in October 2019 after facing off against other tech giants like IBM, Oracle, and Amazon in a fierce, yearslong[sic] bidding process. The contract would provide cloud computing services to the U.S. Army and is valued at as much as $10 billion for services rendered over a decade.

[...] The agency went on to say that this decision does not mean work will begin immediately since February's temporary injunction still stands, but it is "eager to begin" working with Microsoft to modernize the Pentagon's IT infrastructure.

In response, Amazon's cloud-computing arm, Amazon Web Services, tore into the DoD and Trump in a scathing post to its public sector blog, calling the government's investigation "nothing more than an attempt to validate a flawed, biased, and politically corrupted decision."

[...] You can read the statement in full here. TLDR: Amazon is royally pissed and the government can pry this contract from its cold, dead hands.

[...] In short, it appears the JEDI saga still isn't over so grab some popcorn and settle in, folks. This one's shaping up to be a doozy.

Pentagon Cancels $10 Billion JEDI Cloud Contract, Likely to Give Money to Both Amazon and Microsoft 22 comments

Pentagon cancels $10 billion JEDI cloud contract that Amazon and Microsoft were fighting over

The Department of Defense announced Tuesday it's calling off the $10 billion cloud contract that was the subject of a legal battle involving Amazon and Microsoft. But it's also announcing a new contract and soliciting proposals from both cloud service providers where both will likely clinch a reward.

The JEDI, or Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure, deal has become one of the most tangled contracts for the DOD. In a press release Tuesday, the Pentagon said that "due to evolving requirements, increased cloud conversancy, and industry advances, the JEDI Cloud contract no longer meets its needs."

[...] The agency said it plans to solicit proposals from both Amazon and Microsoft for the contract, adding that they are the only cloud service providers that can meet its needs. But, it added, it will continue to do market research to see if others could also meet its specifications.

Also at c|net, SecurityWeek, Al Jazera, and The Washington Post.

Previously: Amazon, Microsoft Wage War Over the Pentagon's "War Cloud"
Pentagon Beams Down $10bn JEDI Contract to Microsoft: Windows Giant Beats Off Bezos
Pentagon's $10BN Jedi Decision 'Risky for the Country and Democracy,' Says AWS CEO Jassy
Amazon Wins Court Injunction on Controversial JEDI Contract


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 16 2020, @08:41PM (2 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 16 2020, @08:41PM (#958882) Journal

    Here we have two of the biggest tech companies in the world, competing to join the MIC community. To my way of thinking, nobody should win. Scrap JEDI, create standards, then award lesser contracts to many different vendors, who must meet those standards. The military can set up it's own networking among the various departments, branches, agencies, and whatnot.

    The larger the MIC grows, the more screwed the world is.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 16 2020, @08:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 16 2020, @08:57PM (#958886)

      Hmm, de-fund the MIC along with Planned Parenthood? This seems relevant to your interests: Arkansas Libertarians nominate candidates for 2020 elections [lp.org].

      (Disclaimer: probably not possible in the capitalist era, inherent contradictions, The Accumulation of Capital [marxists.org], ymmv.)

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Sunday February 16 2020, @10:22PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 16 2020, @10:22PM (#958914) Journal

      The military can set up it's own networking among the various departments, branches, agencies, and whatnot.

      No, it can't. Anything the govt does is wrong, by definition. The private entities and them alone are the master of efficiency.

      For example, look on what that DARPA thingy has become: a cesspit of vulnerabilities and a vector for the Russians to attack the honest Americans.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Bot on Sunday February 16 2020, @08:48PM (2 children)

    by Bot (3902) on Sunday February 16 2020, @08:48PM (#958884) Journal

    A 21st century army that pays corporations for its data infrastructure is an army in the hand of the corporations.

    Basically the world wide financial web is a de facto ruler, it only needs to frogboil people into accepting it politically. The people who rebel will gravitate to a credit score style democracy, which is the current system (money printed by central banks = indirect credit score) with a bit more optimization in terms of control.

    --
    Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 2, Disagree) by c0lo on Sunday February 16 2020, @10:29PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 16 2020, @10:29PM (#958918) Journal

      A 21st century army that pays corporations for its data infrastructure is an army in the hand of the corporations.

      No, it's not.
      Look, any respectable parasite that survived the evolution knows that the fact that you are milking a cow doesn't mean that the cow is in your hand. Taking care about the cow's needs or even the effort to exercise control over the cow will be extremely hurting on the bottom line; why do it when you can simply take the best of it and let the idiotic owners to deal with the rest.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday February 17 2020, @12:53AM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday February 17 2020, @12:53AM (#958954) Homepage
      I'm mostly with you but I disagree with the absoluteness of the claim that the financial sector has everyone by the nads. They only have people and companies (which are not people, fuxake, how did that stupidity ever creep into being?) who are in debt fully by the balls. Those who are cash rich and/or highly liquid are immune from most of the pressure the banks can apply. However, they know that, which is why they've systematically encouraged (a) people/companies to get into private debt; and (b) governments to adopt fiscal and monetary policies (and even international relations/trade policies) that encourage people and companies to get into private debt. Then they have more power.

      It seems like there's 10 times more debt out there than there is actual stuff out there to own, they've done a *really* good job.

      Props to the Bard, the banks know husbandry indeed has its edge dulled - like junkies, you've got to be kept needy.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @03:23AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @03:23AM (#959004)

    ∀ decisions made by the Trump administration ∃ a democrat judge that will issue an injunction against it until the supreme court throws it out.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Monday February 17 2020, @05:52PM

      by meustrus (4961) on Monday February 17 2020, @05:52PM (#959226)

      Allow me to finish your "proof": '∴ all democrat judges are politically biased'

      But you didn't say that, because you know it doesn't follow. You are happy enough to imply it, though.

      May I offer a more realistic explanation? Actions taken by the Trump administration tend to be poorly executed, leaving many legal issues that a competent president would sort out so that it wouldn't face an immediate court injunction.

      Then, political opponents of the president find what they can to challenge him. In this case, Amazon.

      Then the court hears arguments from both sides and determines whether there is merit to the case. If so, injunction pending further determination.

      Adversarialism is how American courts are designed to operate. Nobody expects Trump to come up with reasons why Trump might be breaking the law. Trump's opponents are appropriately motivated to make that argument. Then the court determines the truth, based on each sides' best arguments.

      The truth is not partisan. The truth is based on the law. The truth is based on facts.

      You'd like to believe that judges who oppose Trump do so out of personal bias. You'd like to believe that the correct response is to replace those judges with people that do whatever Trump wants, regardless of the truth. You'd like to believe that's better, because you'd like to believe judges already disregard the truth.

      But that's not the reality we live in. Promoting this idea that the courts are politically biased moves us closer to the dystopia in which they are.

      --
      If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(1)