Investigating a Palantir Founder: Is This a Good Idea?
September 29, 2016
I like the idea of researching technology and companies. I like to know something about the founders, but I am not too interested in their hobbies, the name of their dog, or how they spend their vacation days.
I read “MuckRock & Vice Announce Fellowship to Investigate Peter Thiel.” If the write up is accurate, which for the purposes of this blog post, is the operative assumption, I have a question: “Will this effort backfire?”
I understand that law enforcement and certain government agencies need to develop profiles and bubble gum cards about people of interest. When a person runs for a political office, journalists like to dig into the candidates’ past. But a lawyer and entrepreneur? Interesting.
The write up informed me:
I’m [author of the article cited above] not so sure how much Thiel-related info is really FOIA-able, this may put to the test Thiel’s stated claim that he wasn’t against journalism that made him look bad, in funding lawyer Charles Harder to sue Gawker into oblivion, but rather to “send a message” about protecting privacy. Of course, when you try to silence the press, there’s always a chance that the press decides to turn an even bigger spotlight on you.
Fascinating maneuver by MuckRock and Vice. I wonder if these outfits understand how tools like Palantir Gotham work, the tools’s capabilities, and the unintended consequences of collecting information about one of the beloved professionals involved in PayPal?
Worth monitoring from afar. Those lucky fellowship winners may learn quite a bit from the exercise. Did I mention that I wanted to monitor the trajectory of this “real news” adventure from afar. Really afar.
Stephen E Arnold, September 29, 2016
Palantir: On the Radar of the Dept of Labor. Yes, Labor
September 27, 2016
I received an email from a friend who works in Washington. He wanted me to read “Palantir Alleged to Have Discriminated against Asian Job Seekers.” I read the article. The main point is that the US Department of Labor
sued data miner Palantir for discriminating against Asian job applicants for software engineering positions, the government…
Palantir is a government contractor. Government contractors have to follow the “rules of the road” where government contracts are concerned. Discrimination, like excessive profits on government work, is not a plus when seeking government contracts.
What is interesting to me is the timeline. Palantir filed suit against the US Army in June 2016. Now nine weeks the Department of Labor is finding fault with the high profile Palantir.
I noted this statement in the article cited above:
If Palantir doesn’t end the practice, the OFCCP will request the cancellation of the company’s contracts, as well as bar it from getting federal contracts in the future.
I no longer work in Washington. Heck, I no longer work. I do recall my experiences, however. I wonder if Palantir may find itself on the radar of the IRS and the Securities & Exchange Commission? What happens if the Office of Personnel Management reviews certain clearances?
I know that many events occur in Washington circles which are just coincidences. Sheer chance. I assume it is possible that Event A could be a trigger for Event B. I do not know. I have to do more thinking.
I do know from my own experiences that lighting up the radar of certain government institutions with enforcement authority can add considerable friction to the normal course of business in Washington.
The author of the article heard radar pings, and I assume Palantir might be able to pick them up as well. Foe me, this ping from the Department of Labor’s radar is like the gentle strumming of acoustic guitar. Other US enforcement agencies’ pings make an amped up Metallica guitar seem subdued. Ah, the legal Pathétique.
Stephen E Arnold. September 27, 2016
Bam! Pow! Zap! Palantir Steps Up Fight with US Army
September 25, 2016
Many moons ago I worked at that fun loving outfit Booz, Allen & Hamilton. I recall one Master of the Universe telling me, “Keep the client happy.” Today an alternative approach has emerged. I term it “Fight with the client.” I assume the tactic works really well.
I read “Palantir Claims Army Misled to Keep It Out of DCGS-A Program.” As I understand the Mixed Martial Arts cage match, the US Army wants to build its own software system. Like many ideas emerging from Washington, DC, the system strikes me as complex and expensive. The program’s funding stretches back a decade. My hunch is that the software system will eventually knit together the digital information required by the US Army to complete its missions. Like many other US government programs, there are numerous vendors involved. Many of these are essentially focused on meeting the needs of the US government.
Palantir Technologies is a Sillycon Valley construct. The company poked its beak though a silicon shell in 2003 and opened for “real” business in 2004. That makes the company 12 years old. Like many disruptive unicorns, Palantir appears to be convinced that its Gotham system can do what the US Army wants done. The Shire and its Hobbits are girding for battle. What are the odds that a high technology company can mount its unicorns and charge into battle and win?
The Palantirians’ reasoning is, by Sillycon Valley standards, logical. Google, by way of comparison, believes that it can solve death and compete with AT&T in high speed fiber. Google may demonstrate that the Sillycon Valley way is more than selling ads, but for now, Google is not gaining traction in some of its endeavors. Palantir wants to activate its four wheel drive and power the US Army to digital nirvana.
The Defense News’s write up is a 1,200 word explanation of Palantir’s locker room planning. I noted this passage:
The Palo Alto-based company has argued the way the Army wrote its requirements in a request for proposals to industry would shut out Silicon Valley companies that provide commercially available products. The company contended that the Army’s plan to award just one contract to a lead systems integrator means commercially available solutions would have to be excluded.
Palantir is seeking to show the court that its data-management product — Palantir Gotham Platform — does exactly what DCGS-A is trying to do and comes at a much lower cost.
I like the idea of demonstrating the capabilities of Gotham to legal eagles. I know that lawyers are among the most technologically sophisticated professionals in the world. In addition, most lawyers are really skilled at technical problem solving and can work math puzzles while waiting for a Teavana Shaken Iced Tea.
The article also references “a chain of emails.” Yep, emails can be an interesting component of a cage match. With some Palantir proprietary information apparently surfacing in Buzzfeed, perhaps more emails will be forthcoming.
I have formulated three hypotheses about this tussle with the US Army:
- Palantir Technologies is not making progress with Gotham because of the downstream consequences of the i2 Analyst’s Notebook legal matter. The i2 product is owned by IBM, and IBM is a potentially important vendor to the US Army. IBM also has some chums in other big outfits working on the DCGS project. Palantir wants to be live in the big dogs’ kennel, but no go.
- Palantir’s revenue may need the DCGS contracts to make up for sales challenges in other market sectors. Warfighting and related security jobs can more predictable than selling a one off to a hospital chain in Tennessee.
- Palantir’s perception of Washington may be somewhat negative. Sillycon Valley companies “know” that their “solutions” are the “logical” ones. When Sillycon Valley logic confronts the reality of government contracting, sparks may become visible.
For me, I think the Booz, Allen & Hamilton truism may be on target. Does one keep a customer happy by fighting a public battle designed to prove the “logic” of the Sillycon Valley way?
I don’t think most of the DCGS contractors are lining up to mud wrestle the US Army. I would enjoy watching how legal eagles react to the Gotham wheel menu and learning how long it takes for a savvy lawyer to move discovery content into the Gotham system.
My seeing stone shows an messy five round battle and a lot of clean up and medical treatment after the fight.
Stephen E Arnold, September 25, 2016
A Congressman Seems to Support Palantir Gotham for US Army Personnel
September 23, 2016
I read “Commentary: The US Army Should Rethink Its Approach to DCGS.” The write up is interesting because it helped me understand the relationships which exist between an elected official (Congressman Duncan Hunter, Republican from California) and a commercial enterprise (Palantir Technologies). Briefly: The Congressman believes the US Army should become more welcoming to Palantir Technologies’ Gotham system.
A representation of the Department of Defense’s integrated defense acquisition, technology, and life cycle management system.
The write up points out that the US Army is pretty good with tangible stuff: Trucks, weapons, and tanks. The US Army, however, is not as adept with the bits and the bytes. As a result, the US Army’s home brew Distributed Common Ground System is not sufficiently agile to keep pace with the real world. DCGS has consumed about $4 billion and is the product of what I call the “traditional government procurement.”
The Congressman (a former Marine) wants to US Army to embrace Palantir Gotham in order to provide a better, faster, and cheaper system for integrating different types of information and getting actionable intelligence.
US Marine Captain Duncan Hunter before becoming a Congressman. Captain Hunter served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Captain Hunter was promoted to major in 2012.
The write up informed me:
Congress, soldiers and the public were consistently misinformed and the high degree of dysfunction within the Army was allowed to continue for too long. At least now there is verification—through Army admittance—of the true dysfunction within the program.
Palantir filed a complaint which was promptly sealed. The Silicon Valley company appears to be on a path to sue the US Army because Palantir is not the preferred way to integrate information and provide actionable intelligence to US Army personnel.
The Congressman criticizes a series of procedures I learned to love when I worked in some of the large government entities. He wrote:
he Army and the rest of government should take note of the fact that the military acquisition system is incapable of conforming to the lightening pace and development targets that are necessary for software. This should be an important lesson learned and cause the Army—especially in light of repeated misleading statements and falsehoods—to rethink its entire approach on DCGS and how it incorporates software for the Army of the future.
The call to action in the write up surprised me:
The Army has quality leaders in Milley and Fanning, who finally understand the problem. Now the Army needs a software acquisition system and strategy to match.
My hunch is that some champions of Palantir Gotham were surprised too. I expected the Congressman to make more direct statements about Palantir Gotham and the problems the Gotham system might solve.
After reading the write up, I jotted down these observations:
- The DCGS system has a number of large defense contractors performing the work. One of them is IBM. IBM bought i2 Group. Before the deal with IBM, i2 sued Palantir Technologies, alleging that Palantir sought to obtain some closely held information about Analyst’s Notebook. The case was settled out of court. My hunch is that some folks at IBM have tucked this Palantir-i2 dust up away and reference it when questions about seamless integration of Gotham and Analyst’s Notebook arise.
- Palantir, like other search and content processing vendors, needs large engagements. The millions, if not billions, associated with DCGS would provide Palantir with cash and a high profile engagement. A DCGS deal would possibly facilitate sales of Gotham to other countries’ law enforcement and intelligence units.
- The complaint may evolve into actual litigation. Because the functions of Gotham are often used for classified activities, the buzz might allow high-value information to leak into the popular press. Companies like Centrifuge Systems, Ikanow, Zoomdata, and others would benefit from a more open discussion of the issues related to the functioning of DCGS and Gotham. From Palantir’s point of view, this type of information in a trade publication would not be a positive. For competitors, the information could be a gold mine filled with high value nuggets.
Net net: The Congressman makes excellent points about the flaws in the US Army procurement system. I was disappointed that a reference to the F 35 was not included. From my vantage point in Harrod’s Creek, the F 35 program is a more spectacular display of procurement goofs.
More to come. That’s not a good thing. A fully functioning system would deliver hardware and software on time and on budget. If you believe in unicorns, you will like me have faith in the government bureaucracy.
Stephen E Arnold, September 23, 2016
Palantir: More Legal Excitement
September 6, 2016
One of the Beyond Search goslings directed my attention to a legal document “Palantir Technologies Inc. (”Palantir”) Sues Defendants Marc L. Abramowitz…” The 20 page complaint asserts that a Palantir investor sucked in proprietary information and then used that information outside the boundaries of Sillycon Valley norms of behavior. These norms apply to the one percent of the one percent in my opinion.
The legal “complaint” points to several patent documents which embodied Palantir’s proprietary information. The documents require that one use the Justia system to locate; specifically, Provisional Application No. 62/072,36 Provisional Application No. 62/066,716, and Provisional Application No. 62/094,888. These provisional applications, I concluded, reveal that Palantir seeks to enter insurance and health care type markets. This information appears to put Palantir Technologies at a competitive disadvantage.
Who is the individual named in the complaint?
Marc Abramowitz, who is associated with an outfit named KT4. KT4 does not have much of an online presence. The sparse information available to me about Abramowitz is that he is a Harvard trained lawyer and connected to Stanford’s Hoover econo-think unit. Abramowitz’s link to Palantir is that he invested in the company and made visits to the Hobbits’ Palo Alto “shire” part of his work routine.
Despite the legalese, the annoyance of Palantir with Abramowitz seeps through the sentences.
For me what is interesting is that IBM i2 asserted several years ago that Palantir Technologies improperly tapped into proprietary methods used in the Analyst’s Notebook software product and system. See “i2 and Palantir: Resolved Quietly.”
One new twist is that the Palantir complaint against Abramowitz includes a reference to Abramowitz’s appropriating of the word “Shire.” If you are not in the know in Sillycon Valley, Palantir has referenced its offices as the shire; that is, the firm’s office in Palo Alto.
When I read the document, I did not spot a reference to Hobbits or seeing stones.
When I checked this morning (September 6, 2016), the document was still publicly accessible at the link above. However, Palantir’s complaint about the US Army’s procurement system was sealed shortly after it was filed. This Abramowitz complaint may go away for some folks as well. If you can’t locate the Abramowitz document, you will have to up your legal research game. My hunch is that neither Palantir or Mr. Abramowitz will respond to your request for a copy.
There are several hypothetical, Tolkienesque cyclones from this dust up between and investor and the Palantir outfit, which is alleged to be a mythical unicorn:
- Trust seems to need a more precise definition when dealing with either Palantir and Abramowitz
- Some folks use Tolkein’s jargon and don’t want anyone else to “horn” in on this appropriation
- Filing patents on relatively narrow “new” concepts when one does not have a software engineering track record goes against the accepted norms of innovation
- IBM i2’s team may await the trajectory of this Abramowitz manner more attentively than the next IBM Watson marketing innovation.
Worth monitoring just for the irony molecules in this Palantir complaint. WWTK or What would Tolkien think? Perhaps a quick check of the seeing stone is appropriate.
Stephen E Arnold, September 6, 2016
Thiel and Palantir: Big Play or Not?
August 19, 2016
I read “This Company is Billionaire Peter Thiel’s Biggest Holding.” I am not certain if the write up is a rah rah for a savvy investor or a prognostication about the risks of investment concentration.
The subject is Peter Thiel, investment wizard, and Palantir Technologies. I associate Mr. Thiel with Hulk Hogan, which may be an indication of my own shallowness. I associate Palantir Technologies with its legal dust up with i2 Group (a former client, by the way) and the legal spat with the US Army.
The write up points out:
Late last year, Palantir raised nearly $900 million in a round that valued the company at $20 billion. That makes Palantir the fifth-most valuable start-up in the world, after Uber, Xiaomi, Didi Chuxing, and Airbnb.
That’s good.
But the company may be overvalued. The write up asserts:
If Palantir does go public, it could propel his net worth to new heights.
The write up does not address what happens if Palantir’s value falls and the company does not enter into an initial public offering.
That’s a good question. Perhaps a financial black eye will result? What happens if the legal hassle with US Army is resolved in a way that leaves Palantir Technologies out in the cold?
No answers to these unasked questions. But the write up’s headline is a barn burner even if the information payload is a wet noodle.
Stephen E Arnold, August 19, 2016
Has IBM Channeled Palantir with Augmented Intelligence?
August 17, 2016
I have been compiling publicly available information about Palantir Technologies, the former $20 billion unicorn. One of the factoids I located in my research was Palantir’s use of the notion intelligence augmentation. Palantir tries to make clear that humans are needed to get the most from the Gotham and Metropolitan products. This idea is somewhat old fashioned. There are some firms who explain that their content processing systems are intelligent, automatic, and really smart. As you may know, I think that marketers who suggest a new magic world of software is here and now are full of baloney. For some reason, when I describe a product or service as baloney, the wizards responsible for the product get really annoyed.
Augmented intelligence is a popular phrase. A quick check of my files related to search and content processing, turned up a number of prior uses of the phrase. These range from MondoBrain which offers “the most powerful simplest decision making and problem solving solution” to the slightly more modest write up by Matteo Pasquinelli.
In the intelligence niche, Palantir has been one of the companies bandying about the phrase “augmented intelligence” as a way to make clear that trained personnel are essential to the effective use of the Palantir framework. I like this aspect of Palantir because humans really are needed and many companies downplay that fact.
I read “IBM: AI Should Stand For ‘Augmented Intelligence’.” I love the parental “should” too. IBM, which owns the Palantir precursor and rival Analyst’s Notebook system wants to use the phrase too. Now the world of government intelligence is a relatively small group when compared to the users of Pokémon Go.
IBM, via what seems to be some content marketing, takes this position:
IBM says it is focused on augmented intelligence, systems that enhance human capabilities, rather than systems that aspire to replicate the full scope of human intelligence.
I am okay with this approach to smart software.
The write up adds this onion to the goulash:
IBM also acknowledges that AI must be trustworthy. The company argues that people will develop trust as they interact with AI systems over time, as they have done with ATMs. The key, the company suggests, will be ensuring that systems behave as we expect them to.
I check ATMs to make certain there is no false swiper technology attached to the user friendly gizmo, however.
The write up adds:
AI, IBM concludes, represents a partnership between people and machines, one that may alter the job landscape without eliminating jobs overall. The partnership comes with risks, the company says, but contends that the risks can be managed and mitigated.
My hunch is that IBM’s use of augmented intelligence may be a gentle poke at Palantir. Imagine a presentation before a group of US Army procurement professionals. IBM is pitching IBM Watson, a system consisting of open source software, home brew code, and technologies acquired by acquisition as the next big thing. IBM then tosses in the AI as augmented intelligence bedrock.
Palantir has made a similar presentation and presented Gotham and its integrated software system as an augmented intelligence framework.
How does a savvy US Army procurement professional determine how alike or dissimilar are the IBM and Palantir systems.
My thought about this semantic muddle is that both Palantir and IBM need to use language which makes the system differences more distinctive the way Endeca did. As you may know, Endeca in the late 1990s described its presentation of related content via links as “Guided Navigation.” The company then complained when another firm used its phrase. I think more about Endeca’s policing of this phrase as an innovation than I do Endeca’s computationally intensive approach to content processing.
I know I don’t use “Guided Navigation” when I am rested and talking about facets.
If I were IBM, I would search for lingo that makes sense. If I were Palantir, I would find a way to communicate the Gotham benefits in a distinctive manner.
There are significant differences between IBM Analyst’s Notebook and Palantir Gotham. Using the same phrase to describe each confuses me. I am pretty confident government procurement officials are not confused too much. Is it possible that IBM is having some fun with the AI definition as “augmented intelligence”?
Stephen E Arnold, August 17, 2016
Palantir Technologies Fancies Silk
August 15, 2016
Palantir Technologies has developed a fondness for Silk. Silk is an interactive data visualization company. You can read about the announcement in “CIA-Backed Palantir Just Bought This Entire Startup Team.” If the write up is correct, Silk is an “acquihire” play, not a product play. I learned:
Employees of the graph and chart-making platform will directly join Palantir, leaving the Silk platform behind running on its own. Meanwhile, the Silk team will “work on even bigger and more important data problems”
A British newspaper described Silk as a “Tumblr for data.” Silk’s technology allowed a person viewing an interactive Silk-generated visualization to point and click to explore the data. A Silk user can flip between a map or a traditional bar chart, also with a click.
Several observations:
- Palantir wants to add to its secret sauce with some visual exploration spice. The wheel menu was hot years ago, but the shelf life of “wow” can be short
- Palantir has designs on the commercial sector, which makes sense. Even though Palantir has government work, the banks and pharma companies may have a quicker buy cycle to go with their desire for instant analysis
- Buying a company to get people is one way to deal with the shortage of certain types of technical and management talent.
Palantir competitors like IBM i2 Analyst’s Notebook have been, in my opinion, less agile in moving their systems toward the burgeoning millennial decision makers.
Stephen E Arnold, August 15, 2016
Palantir Thiel: An If Then Chess Move?
July 22, 2016
I read “The Peter Principle: Why Thiel’s GOP Convention Speech Will Be about Him and Not about Silicon Valley.” Interesting write up but I think the “about” part is possibly incorrect. I think the speech just might have been about Palantir, procurement, and displacing the traditional US government defense contractors. The stakes are not ego; the stakes are hundreds of millions in technology business. Silicon Valley and money. It is possible that some Palantir-think informs the political enthusiasms of Mr. Thiel.
In the write up, I noted this passage.
The eccentric investor is not like anyone else in tech.
That is okay. Just like his chess moves, the expected approach may not disrupt an strong opponent’s game. But for those who are not chess masters, the unusual or less probable maneuver can open some doors.
I also circled this paragraph:
He’s been vocal about that at many political gatherings here over the years, including one where those present said he even freaked Tea Party favorite Rep. Paul Ryan out with his thoughts on the need to tear down government as much as possible. It’s not just regulation that Thiel hates, it’s the whole stinking mess, and he has not been shy about saying so. Thus, most people who know him usually give you an oh-that-guy look, shrug their shoulders and move on to easier topics. And many of those who like him personally and call him a “dear friend” are even perplexed, going as far as not talking to him of late because of his Trump support.
The statement is almost edging toward a motivation which I think may be operating. How is this for a possibility:
Palantir wants to provide systems and software to the US government. Mr. Thiel becomes an insider to Mr. Trump, who, surprising many, becomes the president of the good, old USA. As an insider, Mr. Thiel can bring some pressure to bear on those in the government who do not demonstrate the type of enthusiasm for Palantir Technologies which are warranted. The irrational decision making and the failure to follow procurement rules might become a focal point for a Trump-centric administration. Checkmate, US Army. Palantir wins.
There are many moves in chess. This might be one of them with Mr. Thiel looking four or five moves ahead. Critics of Mr. Thiel just might be overlooking an important driver for his Trump support — Palantir’s financial and procurement future. If Mr. Trump wins in November 2016, then Palantir can try to bring rationality to Palantir procurements by certain Federal entities. Just a thought, gentle reader. Just a mental chimera like opening up lines of attack for a bishop and a queen in chess.
Stephen E Arnold, July 22, 2016
Palantir Causes Army to Slam on the DCGS Anti Skid Brakes
July 19, 2016
My hunch is that there are some unhappy campers in the US Army’s DCGS program. Hey, delays interrupt the billing cycles for affected vendors. Based on my experience with some of DC’s biggest defense contractors, billing is often Job One for some folks. It may also be Jobs Two and Three as well. The work does come along, however.
Why mash the brake peddle in the US Army’s One:1?
Navigate to “Army Will Hold Off on DCGS-A Award as Palantir Lawsuit Plays Out.” The write up states:
Palantir Technologies filed a lawsuit with the court on June 30 against the Army for issuing what it says is an unlawful procurement solicitation for the service’s Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A) that presumably shuts the company’s commercial offering — the Gotham platform — out of the competition. Palo-Alto, California-based Palantir argues that the lawsuit was necessary because the Army should be stopped from moving forward on an unlawful and risk-prone software development project that would reinvent the wheel at a very high price. The Silicon Valley company has also filed a motion for permanent injunction to prevent the Army from moving forward with its DCGS-A program until the court has made a ruling on the case.
The June 30, 2016, complaint is sealed. This means that an outsider in Harrod’s Creek cannot read the document. From the information finding its way to my hollow in the Bluegrass State, Palantir perceives that the US Army behaved in an irrational manner. Okay. I heard that Palantir interprets the procurement guidelines and rules one way. The US Army sees procurement procedures in a different way. Palantir may be wearing Zenni optical eye glasses, and the US Army DCGS team the nifty ATN PVS7-3P goggles.
I am looking forward to the legal dust up; that is, if the information becomes available. Based on Palantir’s hassles with IBM i2, the information was sealed just like the June 30, 2016 complaint against the US Army. Without information, it is difficult to know what’s what.
My experience suggests that the DCGS award is important because it involves a couple of hundred million dollars. Also, the project is a multi year thing. That means that the vendor who can get his or her teeth into the prime contract can gnaw for years. The $200 million is just one slice of the cash cow.
Another thing is I surmise, although you, gentle reader, may not agree. Litigation against the US government often makes it difficult for some of those involved to have an incentive to “friend” some folks and get into a constructive social relationship. There is nothing like the lingering stench of a burnt bridge to spoil dynamite chicken at a green bean.
For the individuals who need a functioning multi source intelligence system, you will have to become more creative. The Harrod’s Creek approach might work. With no information germane to a topic, one can rely on gossip, Web articles, or guesses.
Stephen E Arnold, July 19, 2016
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
