The first thing we must accept is we chose the wrong career. We should have been lawyers. The latest IT legal bonanza has lasted more than five years, including one in a special oversized courtroom containing 700 box files of evidence material with, at times, more than 20 people on the benches and witnesses who no longer work for the litigants flown in from around the world. The judgement in Sky’s favour runs to 468 pages. HP, which acquired EDS in 2008, plans to appeal: so it’s still not over!Here’s a summary of the events with some quotes from the proceedings and judgement. Neither side comes out looking good. As usual testers looking at decisions taken by big business will find more questions than answers and be dismayed.
In March 2000 Sky issued an invitation to tender for a new CRM system. EDS and PwC competed for the work. A few months later Sky awarded the £60m contact to EDS. In 2002 Sky decided the project could not be delivered on time and terminated. In 2004 it sued EDS for £700m.
Sky's QC Mark Howard said: "EDS represented they had the resources, proven technology, and methodology to enable them to deliver the solution within a certain timescale and cost. The representations are alleged to have been made dishonestly in order to win the business."
Why did Sky believe them? Did they ask for supporting evidence, for example reports from similar successful projects?
For EDS, QC Mark Barnes said the "main problem with this project was that it was wholly unspecified. Sky knew it wanted a super-dooper CRM system but had little more idea of what it wanted or needed.”
Why then did EDS accept the contract? Did it insist on a proper specification of requirements including defined success criteria before assuming responsibility?
The Judge, Sir Vivian Ramsey, said: “EDS misrepresented that they had carried out a proper analysis of the amount of elapsed time needed to complete the initial delivery and go-live.”
Did Sky ask to see a report of that analysis?
Legally, this decision is important: it means that suppliers can no longer use contracts to protect themselves from liability. The Judge has said that because EDS lied in negotiations the limitations in the contract do not apply and they are liable for all damages. The immediate effect on the software industry will probably be negative - greater caution, higher prices and less investment. In the longer term, will buyers and vendors try the solution that seems so obvious to testers – effective, well-reviewed documentation and traceable, auditable process? Well we can hope...
[For a lot more detail on this case see Tony Collins’ reports for Computer Weekly, including http://computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/01/26/240082/EDS-BSkyB-dispute-became-IT39s-longest-and-most-expensive-court.htm retrieved 4th February 2010]
Related stories
