Mary-Claire King: paid by Bill Gates, fighting against Linux

Image from mit.edu

Summary: More Microsoft executives are leaving and more moles are identified, even in patent cases which challenge the future of Android/Linux

NOT many would oppose the view that Microsoft is a company that's going away. It is shrinking in terms of impact factor and hostile takeover of competitors is the only innovation it has had since around 2006 (Novell) or 2008 (Yahoo!).

"What's behind Microsoft's fall from dominance" is the title of this new article from Barry Ritholtz. It has become clearer that the cult Gates helped create is turning more and more into patents and trolling, as seen clearly in Gates' and Allen's own activities (both are trolls or publicly supportive of trolls). "When the monopoly goes," explains iophk, "so will the monopoly rents. That's where Microsoft gets most of its profit and the initial drop will be sudden. It appears to be starting to happen." The above article mentions "(now slipping into third place) Windows" (number one is a Linux-based platform).

"However," notes iophk, "1st loss was not in 2012 but in 1998, according to The Economist. This article vanished quickly from Google's news feed." We wrote about this before. Microsoft is seemingly another Enron and it did get caught although it bribed the messengers and the regulators over a decade ago. "Too big to jail" comes to mind.

Anyway, joining the long list of high-level executives who fled Microsoft we now have its Channel Chief. To quote a new article:

Microsoft‘s current channel chief Jon Roskill is out and looks set to be replaced by US Small and Midmarket Solutions and Partners (SMS&P) Group boss Phil Sorgen, next week.

The main problem is, when these people leave they often become Elops, i.e. moles in rival companies. The phenomenon is well understood based on history of Microsoft executives who left. To give a new example from a slightly old paper, "six out of eight authors are Softers with two sellouts from Oxford," iophk wrote about this publication, adding: "it's bad that Science is getting infiltrated. Seems to have missed peer review totally. Maybe control over editors or too ignorant editors."

Why does that matter so much? Well, now that Microsoft is getting more and more into the patent litigation business we see that even the courts are being infiltrated by Microsoft moles, who tilt decisions in Microsoft's favour.

Watch how the Gates-funded Seattle Times (through the Gates Foundation) uses the Microsoft booster ("Microsoft Pri0") to groom a "renowned geneticist" rather than focus on the connection to Bill Gates. This is a case against Linux and Android. Conflict of interest much? The Microsoft booster said the trial "delivered a unanimous verdict in favor of Microsoft," but it did not name the Gates connection. As Pamela Jones, who has not exactly stopped writing in Groklaw, put it the other day: "A "presiding juror" is a new phrase to me, as you normally see foreman or foreperson. The judge presides, not the juror. However, there's more. Note the following for context regarding Ms. King's connection to Microsoft: 1) She got her position, according to the U of Washington itself thanks to money from Bill Gates:

""We were very excited at the opportunity to recruit Mary-Claire," says Paul Ramsey, chairman of the Department of Medicine. "We're pleased with the interactive nature of her position, with her joint appointment in the College of Arts and Sciences, where she teaches undergraduates, as well as her primary appointment in medical genetics." In the view of both Leroy Hood and Maynard Olson, enticing King to the UW can be attributed in part to the $12 million donated in 1991 by Microsoft CEO Bill Gates to launch the Department of Molecular Biotechnology. "The seed money from Bill Gates has helped attract a number of people here," says Hood. "If seed money is used effectively, the programs can pay for themselves with external grant money," says Olson. "But there's no way to get into the game without the seed money. It's a genuine success story."

"It is not the first time Microsoft has given money to the U. of Washington, as you can see here and here. Here the two are advertised as star speakers at the same Seattle science conference back in 1997. One might, therefore, question her being on this particular jury."

This system is corrupt and moles of Microsoft and Gates continue to tilt it against Free software; whether we choose to pay attention to it or not would affect the outcome. ⬆