A History of Microsoft's AntiCompetitive Behavior

[alephnull]

arsenicazure said:

justinian said:
There is nothing wrong with the OP. MS fanboys get their hackles up the minute anything negative is said about MS. Blind love.

MS deserves to be where there are. There won't be there forever as all Empires eventually fall and sooner than most think. MS could be on skidrow faster than you may believe.

In the meantime they carry on as any company in that position would. Power corrupts.

As for charities I believe they can do more. A man with $1,000 to his name that gives $500 to charity is in my books a bigger man than one who gives $2billion out of $20billion.

 

You do realise that bill gates does more for charity that all those rich middle eastern sheikhs, presidents, governments and organisations right? Being worth 50 billion doesnt mean u have 50 billion cash in hand a lot of that money is stocks in hand/assets etc.. not LIQUIDITY.

I really cant question his philantrophic side, no matter how much i despise his business arrogance. How much does steve jobs give to charity every year?

 

Governments account for the vast majority financially of the things people would probably classify as charity. Those sheikhs provide the funding to build a lot of mosques and the citizens of many of those countries (not to be confused with the people who work there) are provided with nice fat stipends just for being born (and if it makes them less critical of the regimes so be it).

Much like the guilded age robber barons, Gate's and Buffet's charities are politically necessary. Their public images affect their financial risk, influence, and power significantly. As astute political players, both with carefully crafted images, I'm sure they are not oblivious of this fact.