Editing Unisys (section)

== Controversies ==
In 1987, Unisys was sued with [[Rockwell International|Rockwell Shuttle Operations Company]] for $5.2 million by two former employees of the Unisys Corporation, one a subcontractor responsible for the computer programs for the space shuttle.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/25/us/4-say-problems-in-space-shuttle-are-continuing.html|title=4 Say Problems In Space Shuttle Are Continuing|first=Peter |last=Applebome|work=The New York Times |date=25 September 1987 }}</ref> The suit filed by Sylvia Robins, a former Unisys engineer, and Ria Solomon, who worked for Robins, charges that the two were forced from their jobs and harassed after complaining about safety violations and inflated costs.

Unisys overcharged the [[Federal government of the United States|U.S. government]] and was found guilty of failure to supply adequate equipment in 1998.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20131230233123/http://www.contractormisconduct.org/ass/contractors/50/cases/257/171/doj-pr.pdf] Government Contract Fraud 12/03/1998 (Date of Settlement Announcement)</ref> In 1998, Unisys Corporation agreed to pay the government $2.25 million to settle allegations that it supplied refurbished, rather than new, computer materials to several federal agencies in violation of the terms of its contract. Unisys admitted to supplying re-worked or refurbished computer components to various civilian and military agencies in the early 1990s, when the contract required the company to provide new equipment. The market price for the refurbished material was less than the price for new material which the government paid.

In 1998, Unisys was found guilty of price inflation and government contract fraud, with the company settling to avoid further prosecution.<ref>{{cite web |date=31 December 2013 |title=UNISYS, LOCKHEED MARTIN PAY U.S. $3.15 MILLION TO SETTLE DISPUTE ON INFLATED SPARE PARTS SALES |url=http://www.contractormisconduct.org/ass/contractors/50/cases/259/170/doj-pr.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131231001832/http://www.contractormisconduct.org/ass/contractors/50/cases/259/170/doj-pr.pdf |archive-date=31 December 2013}}</ref> [[Lockheed Martin]] and Unisys paid the government $3.15 million to settle allegations that Unisys inflated the prices of spare parts sold to the [[U.S. Department of Commerce]] for its NEXRAD Doppler Radar System, in violation of the [[False Claims Act]], 31 U.S.C. § 3729, et seq. "[T]he settlement resolves allegations that Unisys knew that prices it paid [[Concurrent Computer Corporation]] for the spare parts were inflated when it passed on those prices to the government. Unisys had obtained price discounts from Concurrent on other items Unisys was purchasing from Concurrent at Unisys' own expense in exchange for agreeing to pay Concurrent the inflated prices".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/08/nyregion/armand-d-amato-found-guilty-of-fraud-in-a-lobbying-scheme.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm|title=Armand D'Amato Found Guilty Of Fraud in a Lobbying Scheme|first=Jonathan |last=Rabinovitz|work=The New York Times |date=8 May 1993 }}</ref>

In October 2005, ''[[The Washington Post]]'' reported that the company had allegedly overbilled on the $1-to-3-billion [[Transportation Security Administration]] contract for almost 171,000 hours of labor and overtime at up to the maximum rate of $131.13 per hour, including 24,983 hours not allowed by the contract. Unisys denied wrongdoing.<ref>{{cite news|title=Contractor Accused Of Overbilling U.S|newspaper=Washington Post|date=22 Oct 2005|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/22/AR2005102201437.html | first1=Robert | last1=O'Harrow Jr | first2=Scott | last2=Higham}}</ref>

In 2006, ''The Washington Post'' reported that the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] was investigating Unisys for alleged cybersecurity lapses under the company's contract with the U.S. [[Department of Homeland Security]]. A number of security lapses supposedly occurred during the contract, including incidents in which data was transmitted to [[China|Chinese]] servers.<ref>{{Cite news|title=FBI investigates Unisys over U.S. government hack|publisher=[[IT World]]|url=http://security.itworld.com/4337/070924unisys/page_1.html|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071114033115/http://security.itworld.com/4337/070924unisys/page_1.html|archive-date=2007-11-14}}</ref> Unisys denies all charges and said it has documentation disproving the allegations.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Unisys Says Facts, Documentation Contradict Allegations in News Story on DHS|publisher=Unisys|url=http://www.unisys.com/about__unisys/news_a_events/09248817.htm|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071013041658/http://unisys.com/about__unisys/news_a_events/09248817.htm|archive-date=2007-10-13}}</ref>

In 2007, Unisys was found guilty of misrepresentation of retiree benefits.<ref>{{cite web |date=31 December 2013 |title=Unisys Corporation Retiree Medical Benefits ERISA Litigation |url=http://www.contractormisconduct.org/ass/contractors/50/cases/698/781/unisys-misrepresentation-of-retiree-benefits_opinion.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131231001630/http://www.contractormisconduct.org/ass/contractors/50/cases/698/781/unisys-misrepresentation-of-retiree-benefits_opinion.pdf |archive-date=31 December 2013}}</ref> A federal judge in Pennsylvania ordered Unisys to reinstate within 60 days free lifetime retiree medical benefits to 12 former employees who were employed by a Unisys predecessor, the Burroughs Corporation. The judge ruled that Unisys "misrepresented the cost and duration of retiree medical benefits" at a time "trial plaintiffs were making retirement decisions" and while it was advising them about the benefits the company would provide during retirement.

Also in 2007, Unisys was found guilty of willful trademark infringement in ''Visible Systems v. Unisys'' (Trademark Infringement).<ref>{{cite web |date=31 December 2013 |title=United States District Court District of Massachusetts Civil Action No.04-11610-RGS |url=http://www.contractormisconduct.org/ass/contractors/50/cases/836/1008/unisys-visible-systems_judgment.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131231001632/http://www.contractormisconduct.org/ass/contractors/50/cases/836/1008/unisys-visible-systems_judgment.pdf |archive-date=31 December 2013}}</ref> Computer company Visible Systems prevailed over Unisys Corp. in a trademark infringement lawsuit filed in Massachusetts federal court. In November 2007, the court entered an injunction and final judgment ordering Unisys to discontinue its use of the "Visible" trademark, upholding the jury's award to Visible Systems of $250,000 in damages, and awarding an additional $17,555 in interest. Visible Systems claimed Unisys wrongfully used the name "Visible" in marketing its software and services. The jury found the infringement by Unisys was willful. Visible Systems appealed the final judgment, believing the court wrongly excluded the issues of bad faith and disgorgement of an estimated $17 billion in unjust profits from the consideration of the jury.

In 2010, Unisys Hungary terminated the local Workers' Union representative Gabor Pinter's employment contract with immediate effect for raising concerns about unpaid overtime and the company's non-respect of the health regulations in its local [[Shared Services Center]]. According to the 2012 verdict of the Labour Court of [[Budapest]], Unisys acted illegally and was ordered to pay unpaid wages and benefits, legal costs, and three months' average salary as compensation.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Unisys Fired the Worker's Union Representative Illegally |publisher=Index.hu|date=23 November 2012|url=http://index.hu/gazdasag/2012/11/23/jogellenesen_rugtak_ki_a_szakszervezetist/}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|title=The Worker's Union Representative Goes to Court After Being Fired|publisher=Magyar Nemzet|date=30 September 2010|url=http://mno.hu/migr_1834/perel_a_multitol_elkuldott_erdekvedo-223652|access-date=9 December 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131115084319/http://mno.hu/migr_1834/perel_a_multitol_elkuldott_erdekvedo-223652|archive-date=15 November 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref>