Infinite Replay

The company’s Amazon Web Services (AWS) unit said in a redacted Oct. 23 court filing unsealed on Tuesday that the award to Microsoft must “be invalidated because it is the product of systematic bias, bad faith, and undue influence exerted by President Trump to steer the award away from” the company. It called it a “flawed and politically corrupted decision.”

Microsoft said in a statement Tuesday “career procurement officials at the DoD decided that given the superior technical advantages and overall value, we continued to offer the best solution.”
Amazon urges judge to set aside $10 billion cloud contract award to Microsoft

Party One: This contract/job/award/loan/et cetera was improperly given to Party Two, who does not deserve it, because the person(s) with the power to decide were behaving unfairly and with bias. A fair decision would have awarded it to us.

Party Two: We were clearly the better choice, based on the neutral and unbiased requirements of the selection. Party One refuses to acknowledge that they lost fairly.

How many different companies, people or groups can we slot into the roles of Parties One and Two and see this same conflict play out? How many times have we seen this same conflict? The groups are larger or smaller, the stakes vary and the disputants don't always wind up in court, but the dispute is the same. This Microsoft/Amazon case seems to be just another in a long series of iterations on arguments about privilege and merit. One side charges the other with receiving something unjustly and have been privileged by bias, the other side counters that the complaint comes from a sore loser and that no privilege was involved.

Once can see this play out when a man is given a promotion, and a woman charges sexism, or a woman is given a promotion and a man charges political correctness. A White person receives a scholarship and a non-White person charges racism, or a non-White person receives a scholarship and a White person charges diversity quotas. The list goes on, and who is in the Microsoft role and who is Amazon changes with the winds. Each side sees themselves wronged.

On the one hand, a charge of victimization by privilege offers another bite at the apple, on the other hand, calling the charges baseless protects a sense of accomplishment and merit. In the middle is a scarce resource (genuinely, or in perception); something that the two parties both want or need, are unable or unwilling to share, and that each feels that they clearly have the most correct claim to. Meanwhile people line up with either side based on their interests and/or preferences. And the conflicts continue. Because they're easier than dealing with the scarcity problem.