11.27.11
Posted in Finance, Microsoft at 2:18 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Thoughts and questions to one who protests against Microsoft’s tax dodge
NOW that there are worldwide protests against corporate dodging of tax it seems like a good opportunity to recall what Microsoft does all around the world to just vacuum some money while giving nothing in return.
Our past articles about this serious issue help accumulate examples that include convictions. Microsoft was not always able to change the law to legalise what is essentially tax evasion. One former employee of Microsoft studied what Microsoft had done politically and then charged his former bosses. In his latest post he corrects what he calls a “wrong” banner and points out that “[i]n 2010, the Legislature changed the state’s Royalty Tax in Microsoft’s favor. The change was led by (wait for it) former Microsoft executive Ross Hunter, Democratic Chair of the Finance committee. The Royalty Tax used to be a .484%* tax on worldwide revenue from software licensing. Microsoft claimed its licensing revenue from its Alter Ego corporate sub-identity in Nevada to avoid the tax. It saved between $1.51 billion and $6.1 billion depending on how you calculate it. However, Hunter changed the tax so the Royalty Tax is now apportioned. The tax now only applies to sales to Washington State customers (not worldwide revenues).”
How is what legal? Well, when a company’s cronies write the law, everything is possible. Here is another new example of Microsoft’s hypocrisy:
TechFlash reports that Microsoft’s General Counsel Brad Smith has called for the Governor to end cuts to higher education and is supportive of an increase to our state’s sales tax. Microsoft loves the sales tax because it’s a regressive tax – meaning that the poor pay a higher percent of their income in taxes than the rich:
“People earning less than $20,000 annually pay 17.3 percent of family income toward sales and excise taxes and property taxes, the report said. People making between $99,000 and $198,000 each year pay 7.6 percent toward their tax bill. Meanwhill, people in the top 1 percent of earners – those making more than $537,000 a year – pay just 2.9 percent, the report said.”
The Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) reports that Washington State already has the most regressive tax structure in the country.
If it weren’t for Microsoft’s Nevada Tax Dodge and its lobbying effort, Washington State wouldn’t have a budget deficit right now. We’ll be updating our reporting on this soon (our earlier summary is here).
This is not the only example of such hypocrisy. Bill Gates and his father need not pay tax because they pretend to run a (for-profit and PR) charity, which exempts them for it while they lobby for more tax burden on the rich, excluding themselves of course. The press misreports this all the time because the PR machine of Bill is hard at work.
Techrights was trying to get an interview with the former Microsoft employee who understands the tax dodge very well. I prepared the following questions, but have not received a response yet. The questions were:
- Could you please start by explaining the tax dodge scenario and the political situation that enables it?
- Is there someone in the political system that facilitates or guards Microsoft’s practices of tax dodging?
- Have you managed to get in direct contact with officials that have a conflict of interest to explain?
- Have any Microsoft executives been contacted by you or the press to explain or to justify what they are doing?
- Are you familiar with Ireland’s status as a tax haven for Microsoft’s European presence? Is that similar to what Microsoft is doing in the United States?
- Did you find Seattle’s media forthcoming when approached to give coverage to this problem?
- What do you perceive as the best course of action to address this issue?
- Is the raising of public awareness sufficient for change? Are petitions or formal complaints fruitful based on your experience?
We would still like to have those questions answered as they would help shed light on what those who dedicated their entire activism to this issue can educate us best and help address the injustice — essentially the robbing of the American public for a few billionaires to get even richer. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.17.11
Posted in Finance, Microsoft, Patents at 12:16 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Who is Microsoft joking anyway?
Summary: People who bet their money on Microsoft want to see the company split and the company’s growing business seems to be extorting the competition in dubious ways
HAD Microsoft quit the mobile efforts (which would make total economic sense), then in that particular area it would have qualified as a patent troll, based on the definition.
Microsoft is still a fairly large company (yet small compared to HP or IBM). It operates in many areas and profits only in few, notably Office and Windows (to a decreasing extent). Monopoly tends to do that. Monopoly abuse tends to shield it.
So, Microsoft might be splitting itself into a patent troll (euphemism “licensing”) and other parts, at least if shareholders get their way. There are several articles right now about the shareholders’ meeting. A toned-down article from Microsoft’s ‘news’ site says that “Microsoft Corp shareholders filed out of the software giant’s annual meeting grumbling that they did not get to ask more questions in their once-a-year opportunity to quiz Chairman Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer.
“The gathering broke up with only a smattering of applause from 450 or so in attendance, while a handful of shareholders angrily shouted for more time to ask questions, after a strictly enforced 15 minutes.
“”Why can’t they answer questions for another hour?” said Bill Parker, a shareholder from Cashmere, Washington, a two-hour drive over the Cascade mountains.”
“Microsoft might be splitting itself into a patent troll (euphemism “licensing”) and other parts, at least if shareholders get their way.”When one is reluctant to be grilled, he or she typically has something to hide (or spin).
As one person in USENET put it: “Only because Microsoft have been buying back their shares keeping the price artificially high. No wonder shareholders are revolting.” We wrote about those buybacks before.
Over at OpenBytes, Tim points out that:
Microsoft is in my view, merely flinging mud at the wall in the hope something will stick, the only place where “success” seems to come easily is with their patent aggression (which now may be set to change after we finally get an idea of Microsoft claims). Apple has a logo “Theres an app for that”, maybe the only logo Microsoft will have in the future will be “Theres a patent for that” as it moves further away from trying to compete with its own products and merely uses its patent portfolio to make a buck.
The basic point is, Microsoft is unable to come up with new products. It relies on old cash cows that it broke the law to put in their current state. Right now it tries to make up a new cash cow through racketeering. Maybe if it spins that off as a separate company (like Nokia/MOSAID) it will manage to dodge regulators. The company is clearly flirting with serious antitrust violations. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.26.11
Posted in Finance, Microsoft at 9:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft’s public looting continues uninterrupted due to government complicity or apathy (e.g. former Microsoft executives in government positions)
THERE IS a large-scale world-wide movement which seeks restoration of financial sanity. In 2009 and 2010 we quite routinely cited a former employee of Microsoft who campaigned against Microsoft’s tax dodge, which was further assisted by cronies it had inside the government (former Microsoft executives). Unsurprisingly, the government took no action to rectify this. It had already gotten occupied by friends of Microsoft and we have more evidence and examples of this, which sadly enough Bill Gates-funded newspapers do not cover.
This Microsoft-employee-turned-justice-seeker has not blogged in, which leads us to assume that he gave up even trying to address such injustices. Mr. Pogson is still pressuring for change this week, but he is located in Canada.
I can see why the US tax-men need to audit M$ but I don’t see why they are apparently so many years behind. Has the darling of capitalists been getting a free ride at ordinary tax-payers’ expense? The quarterly report lists tax contingencies at $7billion+.
Al Capone was an organized criminal, who, in spite of diverse criminal activity even murder was eventually brought to justice by the tax-men. Wouldn’t it be sweet if that is eventually M$’s downfall? Paying their fair share for the operation of the government that protected M$ from competition would be some form of justice although just a drop in the bucket of their ill-gotten gains. It would be better if some of their leadership did jail-time for tax evasion.
Microsoft’s avoidance of tax affects not only US citizens. Microsoft does the same thing in Europe and it was found guilty of doing this in India. This means that us the public need to make up what the thugs at Microsoft refuse to pay (and get away with it because of their connections in politics). Until people speak about these issues on a daily basis Microsoft will thrive in public ignorance and keep pillaging and plundering. We do not cover it as often as we used to because there is not much news going on there. The injustices carry on and there is no sign of anything being on the verge of reform. Wikileaks has got material on this too. Microsoft is good at collecting tax (e.g. Windows bundling, Office lock-in, Android extortion) but not at paying any. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.22.11
Posted in Europe, Finance, Microsoft at 7:12 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft’s culture of paying people a lot of money to keep its abuses secret and also hide dubious deals that are likely to violate domestic and foreign law
EARLIER this month we wrote about UK sex scandals taking place inside Microsoft. Now watch what happens based on the British press:
The sorry tale of Microsoft UK’s Den of Inequity continues, with reports suggesting a top female exec in line for the role of general manager was brushed aside for no reason and given £1 million to keep quiet and push off.
The alleged hush money saw Natalie Ayres, a working mother, leaving the company with a pat on the back and a knowing nod from Microsoft UK. Meanwhile, Microsoft UK was holding extravagant parties for its employees with free vodka on tap and an alleged sex culture that we are calling The Last Days of Redmond.
How convenient. Just pay a £1,000,000 settlement gift, eh? That’s Microsoft. Always settling when it is guilty, for fear of what discovery might entail. We even saw that in Comes vs Microsoft, but we got hold of evidence before it got taken down (as part of Microsoft’s settlement, which came only weeks after the trial began).
As we pointed out some days ago, British journalist Mark Ballard got hold of some rather secret documents relating to the European Commission's deal with Microsoft and then produced a fact-checked article that had impact which can still be seen. As The H puts it: “According to a report in Computer Weekly based on documents seen by the magazine, the European Commission has purchased large volumes of Microsoft software on six occasions since 1993 without a single public tendering process, thereby excluding potential competitors. The most recent agreement with Microsoft, covering software licences for over 36,000 PCs and supporting infrastructure at 42 European institutions, was valued at €50 million. The software included desktop operating systems, SQL Server Enterprise, email, project management and collaboration tools.”
Microsoft is still all about secrecy, hush-hush, and back room deals. These are the hallmarks of corrupt companies.
Speaking of Microsoft secrets, the company is now spinning its losses online by only mentioning losses from 2008/2009 onwards. Microsoft has lost around $10 billion in its online services since 2007 and going further back it would be a lot more than that. The company has billions in debt and is not in a truly healthy state. Bribing people to stay silent can be expensive. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.16.11
Posted in Action, America, Antitrust, Database, Finance, Free/Libre Software, Identity Management, Law at 10:10 pm by Guest Editorial Team
Institutions which value their customer’s privacy should only use free software for their day to day business and record keeping. The rapacious behavior of banks, insurance companies and marketing firms has received a great deal of attention, and sane countries are making data privacy laws but the issue of non free software is seldom raised. Medical records are a particularly sensitive area where morals and ethics should trump profit. Ethical medical practitioners know that the records they create belong to the patient and that those records must be guarded and only surrendered to the patient or other health care professionals serving the patient. Bankers, insurance companies and other companies should be forced by law to abide by similar rules but no one can actually comply if they use propitiatory software which hides operations from users.
The US is in the midst of an insurance industry push towards electronic medical records. Tax breaks and other incentives have been offered to doctors who make the move to electronic records keeping. This will be good if adequate protections are in place.
The privacy of electronic records is supposed to be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, but there are obvious and gaping problems. Frequently raised concerns include nosy clerks especially at satellite institutions like pharmacies, unauthorized remote intrusion, court orders and a lack of action by regulators who take complaints. Mostly overlooked is the fact that software owners like Microsoft will have unfettered access to any medical record that any Windows system has access to. Google recently proved that Microsoft was spying on ordinary users, so the threat is no longer a theoretical matter of the company exercising the broad rights to snoop they gave themselves in their EULAs a decade ago [2] with or without your permission.
Every business and government office that uses non free software should realize this threat and end it by migrating to free software. Moving to free software won’t protect institutions from malicious clerks and other commonly mentioned problems but it is the only solution to unauthorized access to records by software owners. That access and power is at the heart of the bad deal propitiatory software has always offered but is exposed in an ugly way when all of our records are electronic and computers must be on a network to be considered useful.
Businesses that do not move out of customer and self interest should be forced by law. Customers and citizens concerned about their privacy should be protected. Because no such privacy can be guaranteed by propitiatory software, no propitiatory software should be allowed to operate on customer business records. Only software with the four software freedoms should be allowed.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Finance, Microsoft at 7:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A look at the confidential cable about “IRISH FOCUS ON U.S. FIRMS”
OVER THE years we have written a great deal about Microsoft’s tax dodge in the US and EU. We showed that Microsoft had cronies (former executives) in government to allow it to do this and we also mentioned Charlie McCreevy on occasions.
The following cable mentions Microsoft almost exclusively in relation to tax dodging in Ireland. “On this issue,” says the cable, “Irish coverage followed reports concerning, on one hand, renewed pressure for EU tax harmonization and, on the other, the use of Irish corporate tax benefits by U.S. firms. Regarding the latter, the Wall Street Journal reported in November that Microsoft had placed intellectual property with Irish units to save USD 500 million in U.S. taxes, and a subsequent New York Times editorial described Ireland as a tax haven that facilitated the outflow of U.S. jobs and investment. The Irish media later reported that the IRS was pursuing USD 500 million in back taxes from the U.S. software group Synopsis over its Irish subsidiaries’ transactions. Irish reporting highlighted domestic concerns that U.S. firms were exploiting Ireland’s 12.5 percent corporate tax rate with questionable transfer-pricing methods. (As a theoretical example, U.S. firms could sell assets to Irish subsidiaries at low prices in order to minimize their profitability, and thus tax liability, in the United States; the Irish subsidiary could then resell the assets and be taxed at the lower Irish rate, while its profits would form part of the earnings that would grade the U.S. firm’s overall performance.)”
We all know what happened to the Irish economy not so long ago. This whole gig paid off for corporations from abroad, but it didn’t work so well for Irish people, did it?
McCreevy is mentioned in this confidential Cablegate cable where it says: “Ireland would continue to resist any move within the EU to harmonize tax rates that might push Ireland’s corporate tax higher, said Connolly. He explained that Ireland’s opposition to harmonization had a powerful spokesperson in EU Commissioner for the Internal Market (and former Irish Finance Minister) Charlie McCreevy, as well as a like-minded ally in the UK.”
Here is the full cable:
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
Send this to a friend
08.28.11
Posted in Finance, Novell at 6:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The ruthless man behind Elliott Management Corp. is reportedly agitating Brocade
CORPORATE RAIDERS are a parasite of society and they have a very negative impact on everything around them. Nobody wants them except those who use them to destroy a competitor, such as Yahoo! or even Novell. In prior years we wrote many posts about the man who put Novell on sale against Novell's will. His name is Paul Singer, but he hides behind a firm called “Elliot”.
According to several news reports, Mr. Singer is still on his warpath of destruction (for profit). “Elliott Gains Opening to Press for Change With Brocade Stake” says one headline and in all the mentioned article Novell is mentioned too, including this one, stating:
Elliott Management Corp., the investor that pushed Novell Inc. to sell itself last year, amassed an 8.5 percent stake in Brocade Communications Systems Inc. (BRCD), gaining an opening it could use to agitate for change.
The man who should be under investigation for his unethical operations from tax havens, but he is celebrated as a rich man and he is still out for new prey. This is a sad testament that helps show why the bubble economy has had no barriers. For more context see:
- Novell May be Going Private, Hedge Fund Has Cash
- Analyst Expects Microsoft Bid to Buy Novell
- Ron Hovsepian Receives Another Large Lump of Cash as Novell Sale Looms
- GNU/Linux-Savvy Writers View Elliot Associates as Bad Neighbourhood
- Firm Behind Novell Bid Has Shady Past, Could be Tied to Microsoft (Paul E. Singer’s ‘Vulture Fund’)
- Simon Phipps: “Seems Even With Microsoft’s Support Novell Couldn’t Cut It”
- Vulture Fund Still the Only Bidder for Novell
Whether it’s Carl Icahn or Paul Singer, the US citizenry needs to realise that this type of activities is far more dangerous/costly than foreign and domestic terrorism. This is akin to some kind of “financial terrorism”, but those who commit those acts are never punished. The corporate press usually glorifies these people. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.24.11
Posted in Finance, GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, Patents at 2:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: La postura de la Fundación Linux se asemeja a la de la OIN y Peer-to-Paten, lo que lo convierte en un peligro para el progreso REAL en la lucha contra las patentes de software.
La OIN (Open Invention Network) y la LF (Fundación Linux) son entidades estrechamente relacionadas, cuya posición en materia de patentes que escribimos hace unos años[http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/an-issue-of-patents/]. No ha cambiado mucho desde entonces, excepto que tenemos mucha más evidencia para validar y consolidar esta relación este año (el post anterior es de 2008).
Aquellos que han seguido este sitio por un tiempo probablemente saben que somos escépticos de la OIN, porque en lugar de abolir las patentes de software es la validación de una estrategia de conseguir más patentes de software para ‘anular’ las de los enemigos de GNU y Linux (más de el segundo). Peer-to-Patentes adopta un enfoque similar en espíritu. Acabamos de descubrir que Peer-to-patentes se puso en contacto[http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2011/06/p2p-aftermath.html] con los abogados de patentes. ¿Están perdiendo el tiempo de los estudiantes y la legitimación de las patentes? Lea lo siguiente en el blog de un abogado de patentes del Reino Unido basado en:
La semana pasada, Peer-to-Patentes (P2P) seminario, organizado por la IPKat y gentilmente acogido en e la acogedora azotea Olswang LLP en Holborn, se ha ido pero no olvidado. Por un lado, este blog es privilegio de contar con algunas notas de uno de los presentes, el Dr. Roger J Burt (un abogado de Patentes Europeas y Público con experiencia enorme de software relacionados con las patentes).
[...]
Hay una esperanza particular que los estudiantes universitarios, estudiantes de ciencias de todo equipo para el piloto actual, podrán participar y beneficiarse de aprender acerca del sistema de patentes y cómo funciona “.
¡Qué idea más tonta. En todo caso, los estudiantes británicos se les debe enseñar a rechazar el sistema de patentes y antagonizar las empresas que hacen lobby – cabildean – por las patentes de software. Estas empresas son enemigos de su potencial ocupación. Ellos están monopolizando el campo y la reducción del número de puestos de trabajo disponibles en la informática. Estábamos aún más triste ver a Jim Zemlin cerrar su última entrevista con la siguiente declaración:
Zemlin: Creo que se habla en torno a la reforma de patentes. Creo que todos en la industria tecnológica relacionada específicamente con el software le gustaría ver una norma más alta en términos de calidad de las patentes emitidas en torno al software ya que su falta de calidad lleva a una gran cantidad de litigios innecesarios.
El problema no es “la calidad de las patentes concedidas alrededor del software”, el problema es “las patentes concedidas alrededor del software”, ¿verdad? El jefe de la FFII (Fundación para una Infraestructura de Información Libre) interpreta esto como “Zemlin de LinuxFoundation partidario de swpats [las patentes de software]” y dado el enfoque la OIN, no es precisamente sorprendente. Tanto la OIN y la Fundación Linux es un poco como los grupos frente de los partidarios grandes de Linux, especialmente las grandes empresas que participen en el desarrollo de la kernel para su propio beneficio. Si el LF es un frente del los proponentes de las patentes de software como IBM[http://techrights.org/2009/08/12/ibm-promoting-software-patents/] e Intel[http://techrights.org/2011/06/13/intel-for-swpats/], entonces tenemos que reevaluar la forma que miramos a la LF posición con respecto a las patentes, no sólo la posición de la OIN (con la que nunca fuímos realmente compatibles, con algunas excepciones[http://techrights.org/2009/09/13/trolls-perspective-codeplex/]). IBM Rob Weir tweets[http://twitter.com/rcweir/statuses/83693436036849664] acerca de la falsa “reforma” de patentes[http://techrights.org/2011/06/20/algorithms-and-methods-as-monopoly/] que pasa por debajo de la nariz del veterano de IBM dirigido por la USPTO (Kappos):
Fascinante la reforma del Congreso debate proyecto de ley sobre patentes CSPAN .. Debaten el primero en inventar en vez del primero en archivar.
Esa no es lo que la reforma que debe centrarse. La gente quiere y necesita una verdadera reforma que impida que monopolios como IBM consigan la “propiedad” de los algoritmos. Recordemos que IBM e Intel – no sólo Microsoft – están detrás del empuje de las patentes de software en Nueva Zelanda[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Software_Patents_in_New_Zealand] – un tema importante en este momento, porque con esta base los sitios web tratan de imponer su poder sobre los kiwis, por ejemplo, proclamando que “las críticas generalizadas de exclusión propuestas y directrices de examen[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Software_Patents_in_New_Zealand]“. Esto es una falsedad absoluta. La única crítica que viene basada en los gigantes de los Estados Unidos, sus pocos socios en Nueva Zelanda, y como siempre los abogados de patentes. La población de Nueva Zelanda, con razón, re-examinia la idea de las patentes de software en este país. Para citar a la parte que es verdad:
El futuro de las patentes de software en Nueva Zelanda sigue en duda después de un rechazo casi unánime de la propuesta de excluir invenciones implementadas en ordenador de la patentabilidad de una consulta pública reciente.
Esperemos que se mantenga de esta manera. A los carteles de patentes le encantaría para validar sus monopolios en Nueva Zelanda, lo que a su vez pondría a los programadores basados en NZ en una posición de necesitar permiso de los EE.UU. para escribir sólo un simple y original software para el ordenador.
Las patentes de software no tienen sentido, pero hicieron un montón de dinero para aquellos que producen menos. Para insistir en el entierro de las patentes de software existentes (en los EE.UU.) no se necesista ser revolucionarios armados o rebeldes, es sólo lo única racional, progresiva cosa que hacer. Los desarrolladores como realmente suyo están siendo asaltado con sanciones para que los monopolistas pueden mejorar sus márgenes de ganancia. █
Traducción hecha por Eduardo Landaveri, Administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
