SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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:
- Pentagon's $10BN Jedi Decision 'Risky for the Country and Democracy,' Says AWS CEO Jassy
- Pentagon Beams Down $10bn JEDI Contract to Microsoft: Windows Giant Beats Off Bezos
- Amazon, Microsoft Wage War Over the Pentagon's "War Cloud"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 16 2020, @08:41PM (2 children)
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.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 16 2020, @08:57PM
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
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
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Bot on Sunday February 16 2020, @08:48PM (2 children)
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
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
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday February 17 2020, @12:53AM
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)
∀ 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
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?