advertisement
advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

In The Dillard’s/JDA Software Settlement, Details Of Sleazy Vendor Practices Come Out

November 30th, 2011

JDA/I2 stressed that the contract used standard language (“this agreement constitutes the entire agreement” and “this agreement supersedes all prior communications between the parties including, but not limited to, communications with i2’s sales representatives.”). In other words, the vendor’s policy is to decidedly not stand behind any claims they make when selling the product/service. If it’s not written into the final contract, it’s not relevant. As one i2 document said: the contract “prohibits reliance on pre-contract communications.” Good to know.

One example of “pre-contract communications” showed up in an i2 sales rep’s notes on a sales meeting. The project’s requirements called for the database’s ability to handle one million items. The problem, as the sales rep noted in his report to his colleagues (but not the customer) was that the database routinely crashed when it hit 300,000 items. Oops.

The vendor also challenged claims of lost profits on the ground that those losses couldn’t be positively and solely attributed to the software problems.

The vendor also argued that it had no obligation to reveal to Dillard’s an SEC Consent Order or complaints from other i2 customers. “I2 owed no duty of disclosure to Dillard’s, as a matter of law.”

Among the reports that the vendor said it had no duty to disclose was a report they had commissioned from Michael Cusumano, an MIT professor. He had been hired in early 2001 “to investigate i2’s product development process,” according to a Dillard’s filing, which elaborated: “As part of his investigation, Cusumano interviewed scores of i2 employees. He then delivered his report to i2 management on June 5, 2001, only six months after Dillard’s signed the license agreement and just as i2 was beginning the software implementation at Dillard’s. Cusumano’s report disclosed the fraudulent practices at i2, including word-for-word quotes from interviews of i2 employees who admitted they were engaging in fraud.”

As for problems with other customers, that was referencing KMart and Best Buy.

“These other retail customers licensed the same products at the same time and experience the same problems—scalability, missing functionality, unsuitability and buggy code—as a result of the same cause: software that was not ready or functional.”

On scalability, Dillard’s said the i2 claims were specific, with i2 having promised that the software “could scale to 15 to 18 million SKU/store combinations.” As for speed, it compared the promised software with the existing software from Manugistics. “While Manugistics’ software would take 42 days to run Dillard’s millions of SKU/store combinations, i2’s software would take only 4 to 5 hours for a complete rerun from scratch and a couple hours for daily updates.”

Actual results, according to Dillard’s filings, were quite different, with one i2 package “able to process only 9 million SKU/store combinations in 40 to 70 hours.”

At one level, this is nothing new. Software sales reps have never been hired for their humanitarianism or their honesty. It’s buggy and doesn’t scale? Yeah, it’s called enterprise software. If it worked perfectly, it would be called a demo.

I2 was right in that a vendor has no legal obligation to point out customer complaints. But what about the other shoe? When caught, you fix and overcompensate. The fact that a JDA unit today deals with accusations of sales lies by pointing to the contract that says “if it’s not written here, it doesn’t matter,” that says quite a bit to current and prospective customers. This is Reason #8956 why public courts are a good thing.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.