Amazon Versus Microsoft: JEDI in Play?
March 7, 2020
DarkCyber spotted a story in Stars and Stripes titled “Judge Says Amazon Likely to Succeed on Key Argument in Pentagon Cloud Lawsuit.” The source appears to be the Bezos-owned Washington Post. That fact may provide some context for the story.
The main point in the write up seems to be:
A federal judge has concluded that a bid protest lawsuit brought by Amazon over President Donald Trump’s intervention in an important Pentagon cloud computing contract “is likely to succeed on the merits” of one of its central arguments, according to a court document made public Friday [March 6, 2020].
The article states:
In an opinion explaining her reasoning, Campbell-Smith sided with Amazon’s contention that the Pentagon had made a mistake in how it evaluated prices for competing proposals from Amazon and Microsoft. She also concluded that the mistake is likely to materially harm Amazon, an important qualifier for government contract bid protests.
What’s missing from this story? Detail for one thing.
Several observations:
- Planners for the JEDI program are likely to experience uncertainty
- Regardless of the ultimate decision, time to implement newer systems is being lost
- The cost of the procurement process for JEDI will climb and, at some point, may become larger than the program itself.
Net net: Government procurement remains an interesting and impactful process. Procurement just keeps grinding its procedural mechanisms, delivering “efficiency.”
Stephen E Arnold, March 7, 2020
Trellis Research Gets Money And New Technical Co-Founder
February 27, 2020
If there is one industry that needs a powerful and accurate search and analytics tool it is court systems. Los Angeles startup Trellis Research specializes in software for state court data, recently made news with a big fundraiser and addition to their team. TechCrunch explains the details in, “Building A search Tool For State Court Data And Analytics, Trellis Adds Alon Schwartz As Co-Founder.”
Trellis Research is a fire starter startup, known for designing analytics and search software for state legal systems. Their most famous products were Dostoc, an online store and electronic document depository for financial, legal, and professional documents and unGlue a startup that regulates screen time for families.
Craft Ventures recently raised $4.4 million in funding for Trellis. The company also added a new technical co-founder Alon Shwartz. Shwartz’s new role will be the chief product officer. He will work side by side with the company founder Nicole Clark
Trellis’s home office is in California, where they service the California Superior court records and judicial analytics. Wit the new round of funding, the company hopes to expand to Florida, Delaware, Texas, and New York. Clark founded Trelis when she discovered a need for better search and analytics software in the courts:
“ ‘I was customer one,’ says Clark of the product. A former litigator in Los Angeles, the entrepreneur developed Trellis to serve her own research needs. ‘I used this data for two years and during those years I won every motion that I had,’ says Clark. ‘It made it so obvious what a competitive advantage this was. It’s a way to analyze how a judge thinks about issues and a lawyer can draft their motions with a particular judge in mind.’”
Trellis offers a freemium service for state trial decisions and filings with search, but to access the actual documents people need to become paying users. There is an $100 fee for individuals and enterprise users are negotiable. Once beyond the paywall, users can file documents, download, print, and analyze them.
Clark promises that attorneys will double their win rate with Trellis Research software.
Whitney Grace, February 27, 2020
Google: Information Is for Us (Us Is the Google)
February 22, 2020
I won’t write about the alleged Google murder. Plus, I won’t run through the allegations related to this story: “Google Secretly Monitors Millions of School Kids, Lawsuit Alleges.” Google has many facets, and I find advertising Google style fascinating.
DarkCyber thinks the multi state investigation into Google’s possible violation of of antitrust law is philosophically challenging. The case involves information, consultants, Texas, and a tendril reaches Microsoft, an outfit skilled in software updates.
Let’s start with a Wall Street Journal (a story protected by a pay walls) revealed an interesting Google stance.
“Google Resists State Demands in Ad Probe” (February 22, 2020) reported that the company’s resistance to requests for information, in the words of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton:
They don’t believe that they’re clean because they don’t act in any way like they are.
Those involved is the Texas-led legal action want more than email. Google has balked. Google has groused about c0onsultants working on the case.
Why the hassle over ads? According to the Murdoch owned WSJ:
News Corp has complained that Google and other digital companies siphon ad revenue from content creators.
DarkCyber finds the pivot point in this multi state tug of war is information.
Google is an information company. Some believe that Google sought to index the world’s information. Then allow people to access the content.
But advertising revenue and a mostly ignored lawsuit about ad technology have altered the definition of information.
Google has information about its ad business. Some of that information has been requested via appropriate legal vehicles by the states’ taking Google to court. Google does not want to make that information available.
If the data were made available, presumably attorneys would be able to:
- Perform text analytics; for example, display statistical information about word occurrences, generate clusters of like data, etc.
- Generate indexed entities and tag them. Once tagged, these entities can be graphed so relationships become visible
- Output timelines of events and link those events to entities
- Search the content using key words and use the tags to reveal tough to discern items of information; who influenced what action when the words used to describe the activities were ambiguous to a non Googler.
There are other functions enabled by the corpus and current content processing technology.
DarkCyber noted these thoughts:
- Google is an information company and does not want that information disclosed
- Tools, some of which may run on Google’s cloud infrastructure, can reveal important nuances in the ad matter, nuances which otherwise may be impossible to discern by reading and human note taking
- The legal system, which has been most ineffectual in dealing with Google lacks laws and regulations which have not be enacted in the US to deal with digital monopolies.
Net net: Google may have the upper hand… again.
Stephen E Arnold, February 22, 2020
Why 2020 Will Be Challenging for Google and Europe
February 21, 2020
A straightforward Reuters news story appeared on Valentine’s Day. Title? “Google Protests Eye-Catching $2.6 Billion EU Fine, Judge Disagrees.” (This is a trustworthy story because Thomson Reuters provides a link to its trust principles.)
The trustworthy story includes a few interesting factettes about the online ad giant’s defensive posture; for example:
- The deterrent multipler and another multiplier factor was excessive and unwarranted.
- Google’s behavior was not anti competitive.
- Google’s lawyer pointed to the company’s “good faith attempts” to remediate itself.
Interesting position for Google. Different legal eagles continue to sing from the decades-old Google hymnal.
One statement, however, cuts through the “gee, we’re trying” and “you are unfair to the Google.” This is the quote attributed to EU lawyer Anthony Dawes:
Google’s conduct constituted a well established form of abuse.
It does not appear that Google’s assurances that it has kicked its habit of being Googley yet. The phrase “well established form of abuse” suggests that a fine may not do the trick.
Maybe the EU should consider a tough love approach:
But what if public criticism, fines, and tough love do not work? What recourse does the EU have? DarkCyber has a hunch that the EU regulators probably use Google on a daily basis to locate information as part of their effort to bring Google into line with the EU’s expectations and rules.
Maybe, just maybe, this is the challenge:
Hence, 2020 will be a push-pull affair. Queue “The Imperial March.”
Stephen E Arnold, February 21, 2020
Will Amazon Send President Trump a Valentine This Year?
February 13, 2020
DarkCyber noted “Amazon Wants Trump to Testify on Order to Screw Amazon in Pentagon Deal.” The Australian information service states:
Amazon Web Services said on Monday it was seeking to depose President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Mark Esper in its lawsuit over whether the president was trying “to screw Amazon” when it awarded a Pentagon contract for cloud computing to rival Microsoft Corp. The Amazon.com Inc unit alleged that Trump, who has publicly derided Amazon head Jeff Bezos and repeatedly criticized the company, exerted undue influence on the decision to deny it the US$10 billion contract.
Years ago I read the handbook of modern management, De Principatibus by Niccolo Machiavelli. One observation I sort of recall is:
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.
Worth monitoring billionaires fighting.
Stephen E Arnold, February 13, 2020
The Desire to Lynch: Capitalist Success and a Need to Undermine
February 11, 2020
Forbes, the capitalist tool. Now the magazine seems to be making its doubts about Malcolm’s mantra more obvious. The one of precepts of the capitalist tool is:
Anyone who says businessmen deal in facts, not fiction, has never read old five-year projections. – Malcolm Forbes, son of BC Forbes, who founded the magazine
What may be surfacing is push back against greed, success, and materialism.
DarkCyber found this Forbes’ article interesting: “Skeletons In The Closet: $2 Billion Cybersecurity Firm Darktrace Haunted By Characters From HP’s Failed Autonomy Deal.” This passage caught our attention:
Federal prosecutors were apoplectic, saying Hussain and his co-conspirators’ crimes reflected “an attitude that, like a James Bond villain or a Mafioso, they were above the law.” They also compared him to disgraced WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers.
Hussain is the former CFO of the search and content processing company Autonomy. Yep, the outfit which Hewlett Packard bought for $11 billion in 2011. The purchase price reflected the management acumen of Hewlett Packard, a well oiled Silicon Valley machine.
The Forbes’ article notes:
As a $5 billion civil fraud suit brought by HP in the U.K. rumbles on, the U.S. has pressed ahead with criminal charges in what prosecutors say is the largest fraud case in the history of the Northern District of California. Hussain, who is in the process of appealing his conviction, is the first of the old Autonomy guard to have been found guilty, going down for 14 counts of wire fraud, one of securities fraud and one of conspiracy. Two others—Autonomy founder and ex-CEO Mike Lynch and former finance vice president Steve Chamberlain—were also charged, but Lynch has yet to appear in court and a U.S. request for the extradition of Lynch is pending in the U.K. Earlier this week, Lynch submitted himself for arrest, in what his lawyers described as a “formality” in the extradition process. Lynch and Hussain are the focus of HP’s U.K. civil fraud claim, which lumbered through closing arguments in December and January. They are now awaiting a verdict. Lawyers for all three have professed their clients’ innocence.
Forbes then reminds the reader:
The Autonomy connection persists today; half of Darktrace’s board and six of its eight top executives are ex-Autonomy folks, which included Gustafsson (ex-corporate controller) and co-CEO Nicole Eagan (ex-chief marketing officer).
The most interesting angle in the story is alleged sexual harassment. What we have is a delightful tale of capitalism, Bondism, financial legerdemain, and me-too assertions.
Let’s step back. Is the write up about a brilliantly managed company like Hewlett Packard getting snookered by a company selling text processing technology? Is the write up about the evils of the team assembled by Michael Lynch to bring Bayesian to enterprise search? Is the write up about the personalities involved in the Autonomy and DarkTrace enterprises?
DarkCyber is on the edge of concluding that the real subject of the Forbes’ article is that capitalism is bad.
As Malcolm Forbes alleged said:
Unconsciously I had discovered the commentator’s secret weapon-that so long as you can wield words, it isn’t necessary to know what you’re talking about.
What’s the business of business? The “old” Forbes may have had the answer. The “new” Forbes is going another direction. k
As Malcolm Forbes allegedly revealed:
You’re fortunate when you can afford to be virtuous.
Is Forbes whipping up a lynch mob? That’s an interesting approach to capitalism.
Stephen E Arnold, February 11, 2020
Founder of Autonomy: Extradition Action
February 5, 2020
DarkCyber noted this CBR Online story: “Mike Lynch Submits Himself for Arrest.” The write up states:
Former Autonomy CEO Dr Mike Lynch has submitted himself for arrest this morning, in what his legal team described as a formality required as part of an extradition process initiated by the US Department of Justice. Lynch is still contesting extradition.
The story about the founder of Autonomy and DarkTrace continues. A free profile about Autonomy is available at this link. (Note: this document is a rough draft prepared for a client before the Hewlett Packard purchase of the company. Also, Autonomy was a client of mine before I retired in 2013.)
Stephen E Arnold, February 5, 2020
NSO Does Not Play the Facebook Game
January 16, 2020
We spotted a write up in Techdirt, an interesting publication indeed. The story is “Malware Marketer NSO Group Looks Like It’s Blowing Off Facebook’s Lawsuit.”
The title suggested to some of the DarkCyber team that NSO is a not so good company. It is a malware marketer. Furthermore, the company is “blowing off” Facebook’s lawsuit.
The Facebook case asserts that the NSO Group exploited WhatsApp. The goal? Compromise an actor’s mobile device via software. This approach is known as an attack vector created by Facebook.
NSO, as DarkCyber has noted in this blog and our videos, has been generating media attention. Specialized software companies providing technology to government entities generally prefer to maintain a lower profile.
What’s the status of Facebook’s legal action? Techdirt states:
Facebook’s lawsuit is going nowhere fast. While it’s not uncommon for there to be a delay between the filing of a complaint and the defendant’s response, NSO hasn’t filed anything — not even a notice of appearance from its corporate counsel — since the filing of the suit.
NSO is not a US company. It is owned by a Japanese firm and most of the technical operations are still under the umbrella of Israeli citizens.
DarkCyber thinks that Facebook’s challenge to NSO was an interesting action.
First, NSO responds to its customers’ needs. This means that outfits like Facebook which often drag their running shoe shod feet when it comes to dealing with government requests for data invites attention from specialist firms. Look in the mirror, Facebookers.
Second, Facebook wants to encrypt everything, create its own walled garden, and operate like a country. Okay, Facebookers, that attitude invites some special attention. Look in the mirror, Facebookers.
Third, the challenge to NSO strikes DarkCyber like an New Age slow cooker calling a microwave an unnecessary luxury. Nope. Look in the mirror, Facebooks, or in this case, in the reflection in the slow cooker’s aluminum skin.
Net net: Facebook may want to think a bit harder about the resources available to specialist software firms. Why? Nothing special, of course.
Stephen E Arnold, February 16, 2020
MIT and Ethics for the 21st Century: A New Spin on Academia, Ethics, and Technology
January 13, 2020
Yes, a new spin. There is nothing like spin, particularly when an august institution has accepted money from an interesting person. Who is this fascinating individual?
Jeffrey Epstein, alleged procurer, human trafficker, and hobnobber with really great and wonderful people.
I read, with some disgust, “Eight Revelations from MIT’s Jeffrey Epstein Report,” which was conveniently published in Technology Review, an organ of truth and insight affiliated with MIT. For context, I had just completed “Alphabet’s Top Lawyer to Retire after Google Founders Leave,” which appeared in the Bloomberg news-iverse. You remember Bloomberg, the outfit which reported with some nifty assertions that motherboard spying was afoot.
But to MIT and Epstein, then a comment about the sterling outfit Google.
MIT’s write up explained that MIT was prudent. Instead of accepting $10 million from the interesting and now allegedly deceased Mr. Epstein, the university accepted a mere $800,000. Such restraint. And that’s the subtitle for the write up!
What are the eight teachings derived from the fraternization, support, and joy of accepting the interesting Mr. Epstein? Here you go, gentle reader:
- The relationship for money extended over 15 years. Such tenacity.
- The hook up with Mr. Epstein were happenstance. Maybe MIT was seduced?
- The $10 million didn’t happen, but the donations had to be anonymous. Such judgment.
- It was the MIT Corporation, not the real school.
- Mr. Epstein prevaricated about his donations. Quite a surprise, of course. Lies, deception, manipulation, etc. etc.
- Mr. Epstein attended real MIT events, like the funeral for “AI pioneer Marvin Minsky.” An icon, of course.
- No big wheels like Bill Gates were involved in directing Mr. Epstein’s money. Perhaps a bit of color on this point would be helpful.
- A real MIT professional asserted that Mr. Epstein was a person whom MIT “should treat with respect.”
And the write up concludes, “The Media Lab [a unit of MIT] rejected $25,000, Mr. Epstein tried to donate in 2019. Another example of judgment.
To sum up, quite a write up about an institution which I assume offers a course in ethics. Well, maybe not. Full disclosure: I was quote in the MIT Technology Review late in 2019. I was not thrilled with that association with an outfit will to treat Mr. Epstein with respect.
Now to the Google. The world’s largest online advertising agency seems to be channeling the antics of Madison Avenue in the 1950s. In this episode of the Science Club Explores Biological Impulses”, I learned:
David Drummond, the legal chief of Google parent Alphabet Inc. and a company veteran, stepped down following questions about his conduct at the technology giant.
The conduct may have involved another Googler. What do two Googlers create? Why another Googler it seems. Who knew that Madison Avenue extended from New York City to Mountain View, California.
Net net: Two outfits with people who should have known about propriety demonstrated poor judgment. Look for slightly used ethical compasses on eBay. Lightly used but likely to manifest flawed outputs.
I would suggest that certain non technical behaviors qualify as grounds for viewing MIT and Google as very poorly managed institutions staffed by individuals who operate from a position above the “madding crowd.”
Stephen E Arnold, January 13, 2020
Google and Open Innovation: A Tiny Ripple, the Flap of a Butterfly Wing?
January 7, 2020
The US government is rethinking its approach to commercial artificial intelligence or to application programming interfaces nature. “The Case for Open Innovation” is interesting.
The write up, allegedly written by a senior vice president and legal eagle at Google, states:
Software programs work better when they work together. Open software interfaces let smartphone apps and other services connect across devices and operating systems. And interoperability—the ability of different software systems to exchange information—lets people mix and match great features, and helps developers create new products that work across platforms. The result? Consumers get more choices for how they use software tools; developers and startups can challenge bigger incumbents; and businesses can move data from one platform to another without missing a beat. This kind of open and collaborative innovation, from scientific peer-reviewed papers to open-source software, has been key to America’s achievements in science and technology.
The Googler emphasizes that Google is fighting Oracle’s claim that the online ad company improperly used Oracle’s intellectual property.
The write up claims:
That’s why today we filed our opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle’s lawsuit against us. We’re asking the Court to reaffirm the importance of the software interoperability that has allowed millions of developers to write millions of applications that work on billions of devices.
After reading this, I jotted down factors which have facilitated information exchange:
- Technical experts from other countries working for US companies in the US
- Desire to reduce costs
- Need to piggyback to avoid reinventing the wheel
- Presence of staff who worked on a technology when it was developed at a different company
- Importance of an acquiring firm to maximize the financial return of its purchase of a company and technology; for example, Sun Microsystems and Java.
Also, the ideas of openness and interoperability are interesting, particularly when articulated by commercial firms eager to establish revenue, user, and customer locks. The context of the actions taken by the US government to address export of smart software may be sucked into this particular legal dispute. Export controls seem to be different from the intent of open innovation.
The timing is important. In this particular case of Google versus Oracle, timing play a significant role. The court’s decision or non decision might unsettle today’s context of commerce and politics.
Stephen E Arnold, January 7, 2020
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
