Red Hat sticks lawyers on non-neutral Switzerland

There's no real alternative to Microsoft


Red Hat is heading an appeal against a Swiss government agency’s award of a contract handed to Microsoft without any public bidding.

The Linux software vendor said late last week that it was joining 17 other tech firms in disputing the Swiss Federal Bureau for Building and Logistics’ decision. The agency gave Microsoft the three-year contract - worth 14 million Swiss Francs (£8.1m) per year - without seeking any other bidders.

“The challenge raises important issues of openness in government and of a level playing field for open source and other competitors of Microsoft,” said the Red Hat legal team in a blog post.

“Red Hat is seeking a public bidding process that allows for consideration of the technical and commercial advantages of open source software products.”

The Swiss agency justified the no-bid procurement procedure because it could not find a “sufficient alternative” to Microsoft’s software, according to Red Hat.

Unsurprisingly, Red Hat disputes such a rational. The firm filed a brief with the Swiss Federal Administration Court last week, in which it demanded that the court reverse the agency’s decision and hold a public bidding process.

“This public process will allow for fair consideration of the merits of open source and other non-Microsoft software products,” said Red Hat.

Other companies appealing against the Swiss agency decision include Collax GmbH, Corvent GmbH, iNodes AG, Open-Xchange GmbH and 4Synergy GmbH. ®


Other stories you might like

  • Venezuelan cardiologist charged with designing and selling ransomware
    If his surgery was as bad as his opsec, this chap has caused a lot of trouble

    The US Attorney’s Office has charged a 55-year-old cardiologist with creating and selling ransomware and profiting from revenue-share agreements with criminals who deployed his product.

    A complaint [PDF] filed on May 16th in the US District Court, Eastern District of New York, alleges that Moises Luis Zagala Gonzalez – aka “Nosophoros,” “Aesculapius” and “Nebuchadnezzar” – created a ransomware builder known as “Thanos”, and ransomware named “Jigsaw v. 2”.

    The self-taught coder and qualified cardiologist advertised the ransomware in dark corners of the web, then licensed it ransomware to crooks for either $500 or $800 a month. He also ran an affiliate network that offered the chance to run Thanos to build custom ransomware, in return for a share of profits.

    Continue reading
  • China reveals its top five sources of online fraud
    'Brushing' tops the list, as quantity of forbidden content continue to rise

    China’s Ministry of Public Security has revealed the five most prevalent types of fraud perpetrated online or by phone.

    The e-commerce scam known as “brushing” topped the list and accounted for around a third of all internet fraud activity in China. Brushing sees victims lured into making payment for goods that may not be delivered, or are only delivered after buyers are asked to perform several other online tasks that may include downloading dodgy apps and/or establishing e-commerce profiles. Victims can find themselves being asked to pay more than the original price for goods, or denied promised rebates.

    Brushing has also seen e-commerce providers send victims small items they never ordered, using profiles victims did not create or control. Dodgy vendors use that tactic to then write themselves glowing product reviews that increase their visibility on marketplace platforms.

    Continue reading
  • Oracle really does owe HPE $3b after Supreme Court snub
    Appeal petition as doomed as the Itanic chips at the heart of decade-long drama

    The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Oracle's appeal to overturn a ruling ordering the IT giant to pay $3 billion in damages for violating a decades-old contract agreement.

    In June 2011, back when HPE had not yet split from HP, the biz sued Oracle for refusing to add Itanium support to its database software. HP alleged Big Red had violated a contract agreement by not doing so, though Oracle claimed it explicitly refused requests to support Intel's Itanium processors at the time.

    A lengthy legal battle ensued. Oracle was ordered to cough up $3 billion in damages in a jury trial, and appealed the decision all the way to the highest judges in America. Now, the Supreme Court has declined its petition.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022