There is something you should know about charities. I was raised in the West Palm Beach area and there is something called the charity circuit. Basically, a different charity holds a party/gala each night which allows people to throw lavish parties in a tax deductible way. Most of the time these charities barely break even on these parties^M^M^M^M^M^M^Mfundraisers. I think industry standard is 15% of the money taken in by charities on average actually makes it to it's cause.

There are some good charities like Oxfam, and I'm sure the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation does occasionally do good work. But if you think about it, handing his MS shares over to a non-profit trust under his control was the best way for him to avoid taxes and diversify his holdings. He is the richest man in the world, so he cannot pull the usual shenanigans as the politics are delicate.

What do you mean by "quantify"? How do you quantify intent to murder?

Although this does bring up the problem of prosecuting only based on anti-competative behavior and argues in favor for general anti-monopoly legislation. The EU does just this and it's based on market share, something that is much more quantifiable.

they also talked with mother developers to Ban Linux support from their BIOS.

many bios when trying to install linux it redirect the ACPI table to a broken one.

even if any windows standard one would work.

as for who it's good or bad?

neither apple or Microsoft are good. they follow a American philosophy that seriously disgust me.

@squilliam thats not true, you see Nokia have over 40% of the phone marketshare, and their Symbian OS its now an open fundation.

and even in video games we have competition.

There are shades of grey, but companies should be held responsible for their actions especially when the consequences are significant. For example, I would argue that MS's monopoly held back mass adoption of the internet for at least 4 years.

They seek power, they seek to be the one and only of any market they're in... we all knew this right?

Its not as simple as classical liberals like to think. Some markets by their very nature are more efficiently organised in a monopolistic kind of way. Consider situations like Cable companies, power line companies, Cell phone providers where each for a variety of reasons find a natural equilibrium in a monopolistic state. In these situations the market is better provided for by a monopoly as long as the excessive economic rents taken by these companies are held in check.

I would argue that your all against all, Hobesian view of the state of nature is just as fanciful as the "Teletubby" world of Rousseu which you seem to currently be projecting onto me.

The world is a complicated place, and can't be summed up by a philosiphy which fits on a bumper sticker. Sorry.

These comments are all 10+ years old...

Talk about drudging up the past...

You can hate Microsoft all you want, but they are one of the most sucessful businesses in history. There have been tons of companies that their sole goal was to kill Microsoft. Each time Microsoft has come out on top... Simply put, they are smarter and more agile then any other large company on the planet.

All I want for XMas is a PSP!

I also should of used that $5 coupon I was sent by Nintendo sent out, to meet anti-trust, and price fixing they did, as dictated by the FTC.

Look we get it you don't like Microsoft but at least give the man credit for doing something good with his money instead of trying to spin it with absolutely no proof to fit your agenda.  If you think he's trying to pull a fast one then provide proof, otherwise give credit where it's due.