Summary: Microsoft is said to have punished and sacked the man who created yet another failing project after stunning failures like the Zune
AS we noted earlier this month, Microsoft’s Courier joined the ranks [1, 2] of dead products from Microsoft. It got killed by competition from GNU/Linux and maybe hypePad too. The man who worked on several failed projects at Microsoft (losing a lot of money) may have just joined the list of major employees who fled Microsoft.
Word inside was Allard was none too happy about the killing off of Courier and has finally made good on his (what sounds like they may have been regular) threats about leaving the company all together. (Another person with whom I communicated claimed CEO Steve Ballmer showed Allard the door because of disagreements regarding the Courier’s potential.)
Summary: The SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) contacts Steve Ballmer regarding oddities in Microsoft’s latest financial report
WE WISH to begin with factual background that a lot of people are unaware of. A few months ago, right around the time that Microsoft's CFO quit he was also paid millions of dollars by Microsoft to keep his mouth shut. This is not a standard transaction. This could indicate malpractice and there is reason for prejudice because the SEC previously caught and investigated Microsoft for financial fraud (Microsoft eventually settled), after a Microsoft employee, Charles Pancerzewski, had blown the whistle and presented to the judge convincing evidence of fraud taking place at Microsoft. Microsoft paid Pancerzewski millions of dollars to shut him up and eliminate his evidence [1, 2]. It’s a typical maneuver from Microsoft, which also hires/pays critics to walk away and not share their knowledge with the public. We gave several examples of this before.
A few days ago we wrote about Microsoft’s close relationship with US banks/the Fed, which are aflood with misconduct these days. They contact Microsoft for help brainwashing the public [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9], as we noted some days ago when we wrote about the SEC suing Goldman Sachs for fraud. For those who have not read that previous post, Microsoft’s CEO was asked to create a seasonly game to teach the public about deficit crunching (Microsoft too has debt) and as this new article shows, using games to brainwash minds is not out of the ordinary (war games are the most famous example).
PepsiCo International and Microsoft have teamed up to create an integrated digital advergaming campaign to take advantage of what’s expected to be increasing interest in soccer as the World Cup gets underway.
But anyway, here is the interesting development. Pogson has found this document[PDF] buried inside the SEC’s Web site. Since it is available as a PDF, we decided to append it at the bottom as plain text. Microsoft’s response is an HTML-formatted mail and here is what Pogson makes of it:
Then, in the last quarterly report, M$ combined that other OS and “live” segments. I guess they thought a zigzag in the curve would hide something like the inflection in the client OS stuff. Further, internally, they use a different set of books, omitting some important details. So, investors should be comforted knowing that internal decisions are made on false assumptions. We have known for years that including the browser in the OS was done not for good business reasons but to exclude competition from the market. I guess that other search engine is more of the same.
There is actually more to it because Microsoft is ‘embellishing’ its numbers by deferring revenue, for example [1, 2, 3, 4]. One writer asks about Microsoft: “Are we seeing a revival?” Well, only if Microsoft’s lies are being believed because in the previous quarter just about any business unit at Microsoft was down. Yes, it was mostly down, but Microsoft claims a surge.
Let me be clear. I’m not a fan of Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT). I dislike its products and I don’t much like its business policies. I’m a child of the open source world and a fan of cloud computing, and Microsoft has long been a dirty word as far as I’m concerned. It’s probably a dirty word as far as many investors are concerned.
Wallstcheatsheet.com, which is another news site, has just published the article“Proof Microsoft has Become Irrelevant” and it says:
If this keeps up [for Bing] , Microsoft may want to rename it ‘Ding’ because that’s how big an impact they’ve had in the search space.
For the moment, Kin and Bing are not making huge waves.
We wrote about it in the previous post. Bing as a “success” is part of an illusion Microsoft is spreading and Kin is a major disappointment which we’ll address in the next post. There is more to Microsoft’s financial reports than meets the eye. Don’t believe what you see next week when Microsoft releases another report and immediately spins it as “success”. Microsoft is not honest about its financial situation. █
Mail Stop 4561
December 11, 2009
Mr. Steven A. Ballmer
Director and Chief Executive Officer
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way,
Redmond, Washington 98052-6399
Re: Microsoft Corporation
Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009
Filed July 30, 2009
01-14278
Dear Mr. Ballmer:
We have reviewed the above-referenced filing and have the following comments.
Please be as detailed as necessary in your explanation. After reviewing this information,
we may raise additional comments.
Please understand that the purpose of our review process is to assist you in your
compliance with the applicable disclosure requirements and to enhance the overall
disclosure in your filing. We look forward to working with you in these respects. We
welcome any questions you may have about our comments or any other aspect of our
review. Feel free to call us at the telephone numbers listed at the end of this letter.
Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
Segment Product Revenue/Operating Income (Loss)
Online Services Business, page 25
1. We note that the operating loss for your Online Services Business increased by
102% and 84% in 2008 and 2009, respectively, and is a significant portion of your
Mr. Steven Ballmer
Microsoft Corporation
December 11, 2009
Page 2
consolidated operating income in 2009. Tell us whether these increasing losses
are indicative of future results and the consideration given to identifying and
quantifying any related known trends, events and uncertainties that would
reasonably be expected to have a material impact on your liquidity, capital
resources and/or results of operations. Refer to Item 303(A) (3) (ii) of Regulation
S-K and Section III.B.3 of SEC Release 34-48960.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
Note 22. Segment Information and Geographic Data, page 77
2. Tell us what consideration you gave to reporting revenue from external customers
for each of your products and services or each group of similar product and
services in accordance with paragraph 37 of SFAS 131.
3. You indicate that your financial reporting systems provide more than one measure
of segment profit and loss for management to operate the business, including
internal profit and loss statements prepared on a basis not consistent with U.S.
GAAP. Tell us what consideration you gave to reporting the segment information
that is most consistent with that used in your consolidated financial statements. In
this regard, we note that the segment information provided beginning on page 23
is presented in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Refer to paragraph 30 of SFAS 131.
4. We note your statement that segments are not designed to measure operating
income or loss directly related to the products included in each segment, due to
your integrated business structure. Further explain this assertion and tell us what
operating costs are excluded from each segment. In light of this apparent
limitation of the data, indicate how the segment information presented is reliable
and relevant to users of your financial statements.
5. You state that “inter-segment cost commissions are estimated by management and
used to compensate or charge each segment for such shared costs and to incent
shared efforts.” Clarify for us what is meant by these estimated inter-segment
cost commissions and tell us what consideration you gave to describing in the
note the basis of measuring this allocation. Also, clarify what is meant by
allocating cost commission “to incent shared efforts.” Explain your basis for
determining the appropriate amounts that will provide motivation and justify why
management believes the allocation methodology is reasonable. Refer to
paragraphs 25(b) and 29 of SFAS 131.
*******
Please respond to these comments within 10 business days or tell us when you
will provide us with a response. Please submit all correspondence and supplemental
Mr. Steven Ballmer
Microsoft Corporation
December 11, 2009
Page 3
materials on EDGAR as required by Rule 101 of Regulation S-T. If you amend your
filing, you may wish to provide us with marked copies of any amendment to expedite our
review. Please furnish a cover letter that keys your response to our comments and
provides any requested information. Detailed cover letters greatly facilitate our review.
Please understand that we may have additional comments after reviewing any
amendment and your response to our comments.
We urge all persons who are responsible for the accuracy and adequacy of the
disclosure in the filing to be certain that the filing includes all information required under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that they have provided all information
investors require for an informed investment decision. Since the company and its
management are in possession of all facts relating to a company’s disclosure, they are
responsible for the accuracy and adequacy of the disclosures they have made.
In connection with responding to our comments, please provide, in writing, a
statement from the company acknowledging that:
• the company is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure in the
filing;
• staff comments or changes to disclosure in response to staff comments do not
foreclose the Commission from taking any action with respect to the filing; and
• the company may not assert staff comments as a defense in any proceeding initiated
by the Commission or any person under the federal securities laws of the United
States.
In addition, please be advised that the Division of Enforcement has access to all
information you provide to the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance in our review
of your filing or in response to our comments on your filing.
You may contact Melissa Walsh, Staff Accountant, at (202) 551-3224 if you have
any questions regarding comments on the financial statements and related matters. If you
need further assistance, you may contact me at (202) 551-3226
Sincerely,
Craig D. Wilson
Sr. Asst. Chief Accountant
Summary: A look at some news about (in)security and how it relates to Microsoft’s role on the Web
JUST OVER a decade ago Microsoft decided to increase its online presence and gradually after it had acquired Hotmail, the service became a mess and probably the world’s largest source of SPAM (except Windows zombies). Last week in the news we found:
The prolific Pushdo spam botnet has found a new way to penetrate Microsoft’s Live.com by exploiting weaknesses in the audio captchas designed to prevent automated scripts from accessing the popular email service.
A new version of the bot causes infected PCs to pull down Live.com audio captchas and return the correct response within 10 seconds, according to a researcher at anti-virus firm Webroot. The attack allows the zombie machines to send email through accounts with a Live.com address, which are whitelisted by many spam filters. The technique offers spammers an alternative to sending spam through open mail relays, which are often blacklisted.
Microsoft has apologised to its UK Hotmail users after some of the software vendor’s IP addresses were embarrassingly blocked due to spamming.
“Microsoft is dedicated to providing the most trusted and protected consumer experience on the web,” said a Redmond spokesman.
For obvious reasons, it breeds poor security (some of this mail can be phishing and malicious executables for Windows). Also in the past week’s news we have:
Why Rustock has adopted this technique is open to debate. Adding TLS to outbound spam slows the rate at which spam can be delivered, which would seem to hurt the spammer’s intention to spread non-legitimate email as far and fast as possible. It is also the case that TLS-encrypted email is no longer automatically trusted by receiving servers, so it is unlikely to be a simple evasion technique.
Duc explains: “From analysis, we found that malware is written in Visual Basic, faking such popular programs as Adobe, DeepFreeze, Java, Windows, etc. In addition, on being executed, they immediately turn on the following services: DHCP client, DNS client, Network share and open port to receive hacker’s commands.”
For the first time security researchers have spotted a type of malicious software that overwrites update functions for other applications, which could pose additional long-term risks for users.
The malware, which infects Windows computers, masks itself as an updater for Adobe Systems’ products and other software such as Java, wrote Nguyen Cong Cuong, an analyst with Bach Khoa Internetwork Security (BKIS), a Vietnamese security company, on its blog.
Microsoft’s presence online may turn out to be more of a curse (SPAM is a nuisance not just to Windows users [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]) than a benign existence. Comes vs MicrosoftExhibit PX06959 (2001)[PDF] is an E-mail from Steve Ballmer about “Transforming Microsoft into a Software Services Company.” Microsoft sure became quite a service — for cyber criminals. We append the text of this exhibit beneath. We also wish to point out that Microsoft saw GNU/Linux as a competitor one decade ago, but AOL too was seen as a “greatest competitive challenge”. Ballmer wrote:
We face plenty of competitors in this new world – not just Sun, Oracle, IBM and Linux, but perhaps our greatest competitive challenge is America Online.
At least with AOL there weren’t quite so many security blunders. █
Appendix: Comes vs. Microsoft – exhibit PX06959, as text
Summary: Latest examples of Microsoft entering the non-commercial arena and influencing decisions so as to help its bottom line
THE FCC family grows and the latest addition is covered by BusinessWeek, which says:
‘Sexiest Man’ Joins Navy Admiral, Microsoft Veteran at New FCC
[...]
Also among Genachowski’s recruits are retired Navy Rear Admiral James Barnett Jr., 56, who is chief of the FCC’s bureau of public safety and homeland security; Steven VanRoekel, 40, the agency’s managing director, who came from Microsoft Corp.; and Steven Waldman, 47, founder of beliefnet.com, which offers prayers and commentary to help users seeking spiritual guidance. Waldman, a former Newsweek correspondent, heads an FCC task force on the state of the media.
[...]
VanRoekel oversees the agency’s day-to-day operations. The former Microsoft executive and aide to founder Gates on speeches and strategy says he has worked to boost technology use since arriving to find an agency where “the status quo was the norm.”
We wrote about this tactless appointment before [1, 2]. The FCC took on Apple just weeks after VanRoekel had become the Managing Director of the FCC. But anyway, why does BusinessWeek care so much about a man’s appearance? It’s not as though people should vote for someone based on whether he is “Sexiest Man” or not.
Last week, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger visited Microsoft Corp.’s Silicon Valley campus to announce that the tech company would hand out more than 70,000 training vouchers through the state’s One-Stop Career Centers. The idea was to give Californians – whether unemployed or working – a chance to take online computer courses and get free tests to certify their skills.
This Microsoft-sponsored program, called Elevate America, mainly offers intermediate training in office programs – Word, Access, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook and Vista – with some vouchers set aside to provide advanced online training to people hoping to work in computer administration.
[..]
Microsoft has run this same program in 12 other states and officials say the average completion rate has been just 30 percent – giving local workforce boards a chance to improve on that ratio by making sure that Californians follow through and take advantage of the training.
This is just nationwide dumping, as we have already explained. Microsoft tries to indoctrinate everyone by means of Windows and Office “training” that it “donates”. This programme is mostly being used in the US, but there are similar things going on in the UK. We gave examples.
To the US government, Microsoft is the tail that wags the dog. Last month we showed that a former Microsoft manager (Hunter) had entered the government where he is now helping Microsoft escape tax [1, 2, 3]. Microsoft’s darling press, the Seattle Times, still seems to be unwilling to cover this blunder; instead it says that “State tax break entices tech firms to build data centers”
Legislators and businesses have been worried about losing new data centers to other states since Microsoft, citing the state’s tax law, moved its cloud- computing platform Azure out of Washington to another U.S. data center. The news was distressing to the Grant County town of Quincy, where Yahoo, Microsoft and Intuit have built large server farms, drawn to the county’s cheap and green hydropower.
Server farms send data and software across the Internet to users and to Web sites around the world. Microsoft continues to operate a data center in Quincy but chose last year not to expand Azure there. Running a server farm requires large amounts of energy and bandwidth.
The Seattle Times should be shamed of itself for continuing to ignore a serious fiasco that hurts citizens of Seattle. Is this publication paid by Microsoft in any way (directly or indirectly)? There’s quite a déjà vu here because other Seattle or Redmond ‘publications’ are dedicated just to Microsoft boosting and some masquerade as government-oriented Web sites that offer impartial advice to governments.
“The Seattle Times should be shamed of itself for continuing to ignore a serious fiasco that hurts citizens of Seattle.”Here is the latest example of Microsoft promotion as an ‘article’ in one these Web sites; Microsoft seems to have gotten its own magazines to sell its products and deceive readers (under the the illusion that these are “news” sites). Here is one new example and another one. These new articles may seem like news, but they are embedded in sites that are named after Microsoft products. It’s an insult to real news sites and it dilutes authentic reporting as a whole. Shouldn’t the FCC look into such issues of misreporting (or improper media centralisation)? Oh wait, the FCC would not care because it’s partly run by a former colleague of Gates and Ballmer. It’s all just PR from a highly PR-dependent company that he used to work for, so why would he care?
Furthering its commitment to promote good government practices through the use of technology, Microsoft Bahrain today announced that it hosted a workshop for senior technology executives from the various entities within the Government of Bahrain.
This is wrong on very many levels. No wonder so many governments blindly sign contracts with Microsoft and sometimes get sued for it by their citizens. In some cases, the lawsuits come from competitors. Take Switzerland for example. We covered it in:
Microsoft’s manufactured ‘studies’ are another important subject that we mentioned last week (Microsoft uses these for government lobbying) and here is the latest example.
Microsoft’s Worldwide Utility Industry Survey 2010 is their latest attempt at doing this, and while this is not really a major study, there are a handful of meaningful conclusions that I think will – and should – resonate with utilities.
In the next post about the Gates Foundation we will show the latest ‘studies’ that they fund to serve themselves. This type of behaviour ought to be exposed because it only adds ‘noise’ to the debate and it harms citizens for the benefit of few large corporations. █
Jeff sez, “Inspired by Boing Boing post about Microsoft tax dodge, cartoonist RR Anderson takes on Washington’s $100 million tax cut and tax amnesty for Microsoft.”
As the Seattle Weekly discussed earlier, the Seattle Times has yet to report on Representative Ross Hunter’s HB3176 and its proposed $100 million tax cut for Microsoft as well as $1.27 billion in amnesty. It may be that the paper is too busy running to the bank to cash Microsoft’s latest check for a full page ad on the controversial 20th century vision to add more car lanes highway 520.
“Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don’t evaluate whether the idea will move the industry forward, they ask, ‘how will it help us sell more copies of Windows?’”
Summary: Analysis of the patent deal with Amazon and why it is a breach of some laws and should therefore be reported to authorities or regulators
IN THE previous post about Amazon’s patent deal with Microsoft we called for a boycott. Some people in Slashdot have independently made similar calls. In this longer post we shall look at some reactions to the news and then analyse a little further.
Glyn Moody, a journalist and author, says “shame on you” to Amazon’s founder, president, and chief executive officer:
Microsoft has consistently refused to give any details of its absurd FUD about GNU/Linux infringing on its patents, which is not surprising, since they are likely to be completely bogus and/or trivial. So Amazon is showing real pusillanimity in making this unnecessary deal. Shame on you, Jeff.
As we explained earlier, Jeff surrounded himself by Microsoft employees who joined his management. Brian Valentine, formerly of Microsoft, is now an SVP at Amazon. There are many more like him who jumped over from Microsoft to Amazon, so it’s a bit like Yahoo! being seized from the inside.
Now they create precedence for charging GNU/Linux hosts and DCs, as well as e-readers. In response to this, said one person: “Let’s see….tell me again why Microsoft news is not relevant for Linux?”
We get asked that question quite a lot here at Boycott Novell. People hopefully realise that the truth is elusive and they hopefully understand why Microsoft is so unique. To ask the above question is to discourage people from looking at what really matters a lot and what requires constant scrutiny.
Basically, what we have in our hands right now is Amazon’s participation in racketeering [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. These previous posts explain why this qualifies as racketeering. This involves servers too, so it’s definitely not about FAT like some people are trying to suggest (this deal is unique and very different compared to TomTom’s for example).
“Microsoft knowingly breaks the law and simply perceives itself as above the law.”Microsoft tried getting around signing of deals with Red Hat and instead it is approaching their customers (Amazon mostly uses RHEL), which are stuffed with unethical individuals who couldn’t care less about Free(dom) software. Microsoft surprised Amazon when it came up with statements that were probably intended to be secret (protected by an NDA). This is some really nasty back-door dealing and as a former Microsoft lawyer explained some days ago, the company is sometimes intimidating and retaliating. Microsoft knowingly breaks the law and simply perceives itself as above the law. Steve Ballmer, for instance, needs to be arrested (not that rich people are ever apprehended, just look at Dick Cheney). Many people are not aware of this because of endless PR, including the ongoing scams of the Gates Foundation. It’s impossible to explain this in a minute or two (the concision constraints).
Microsoft blogs are of course serving their own delusion and are justifying Microsoft’s side in subtle ways. Microsoft has put a lot of PR effort into patent propaganda, so they probably believe their own spin and lies. They are controlling the message and telling the public how to think and how to feel about it.
Microsoft booster Ina Fried is delighted about this extortion [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] because it’s beneficial to the company she promotes. That same rubbish (it’s a blog post) from that PR person has reached ZDNet as “news”, where there is the one-sided promotion with quotes from Microsoft and no criticism whatsoever. People should not blindly accept such bias. “Microsoft licenses Linux to Amazon” is what our reader called it after reading this poor article (promotional, no criticism whatsoever of Microsoft’s racketeering) and he added: “This has to be illegal, MS is making some sort of property claims, else they are engaged in an extortion racket.”
It is an extortion racket indeed. In previous posts we showed why. It must have been made possible in part due to those former Microsoft employees (including vice presidents) who entered Amazon. Should the industry ostracise those Microsoft employees who seem to promote Microsoft’s interests almost everywhere they go?
Here is the coverage from Microsoft booster Richard Waters (he has a long history even bashing Microsoft’s competitors in the Financial Times):
Some big Asian tech companies – including Samsung and LG Electronics – have already reached similar deals to license the Microsoft patents, which the software company claims cover IP that has been copied in Linux. But the Amazon arrangement looks far more significant given Amazon’s massive data-centres.
Servers, eh? Maybe a lot of Red Hat. What does Red Hat have to say about this? Should it not be made part of this decision? Can a client of Red Hat decide on ‘Red Hat’s behalf’ that Red Hat requires a licence from Microsoft? This has got to be some kind of fraud. Here is the coverage from IDG:
Among them, the agreement will shield Amazon from patent litigation against its Kindle e-reader, which includes some open-source software components, and against its use of Linux-based servers, Microsoft said.
Why quote Microsoft’s spin? Wording like “shield Amazon” are nothing but deception (like calling patents “protection” and nuclear missiles “defence”). This is not balanced reporting because the supposition is that Microsoft is not breaking the law and is doing something acceptable. Well, it’s not.
TechDirt, which is immune to the gullibility of the mainstream press, asks: “Amazon Has To Pay Microsoft To Use Linux?”
While since it’s a straight cross-licensing deal, it doesn’t sound like any money changed hands, but effectively Amazon had to “pay” by licensing its own patents. It does seem pretty problematic, doesn’t it, when a company has to “pay” Microsoft (whether in cash or via licenses to its own patents) just to use Linux? Perhaps it’s time to redefine the “Microsoft tax.”
The first comment says: “Where are those anti-trust guys?? Perhaps it’s time to abolish the Microsoft tax…”
Another anonymous commenter says: “Yeah, if you are compatible with FAT you infringe. It seems that Microsoft does not like interoperability.
“How much do they want for each use of Linux – $699 ?”
US regulators may seem like a lost cause [1, 2], but we urge readers to write to their members of parliament or regulators; what Microsoft does here is extortion and just because Microsoft executives wear suits does not make their offences any less criminal than those of a shoplifter or a drug dealer; in fact, the damage that Microsoft’s ruthlessness causes to society is orders of magnitude greater. It’s called “white-collar crime” which sometimes can be “organised crime” (involving more than one party, or an accomplice in collusion). █
“Microsoft is asking people to pay them for patents, but they won’t say which ones. If a guy walks into a shop and says: “It’s an unsafe neighbourhood, why don’t you pay me 20 bucks and I’ll make sure you’re okay,” that’s illegal. It’s racketeering.”
Summary: How Microsoft abstains from paying tax like the rest of the nation’s citizens while press that’s complicit with Microsoft sweeps the problem under the rug
THE PREVIOUS POST discussed Microsoft’s control of the press, especially in Washington (the state). But there are also some interesting news from Washington DC. We’ll touch on both subjects.
Some of the biggest multinationals operating here, such as Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard, are gearing up to fight an Obama administration plan to curb offshore tax avoidance.
The $15.5bn (€11.3bn) proposal in US President Barack Obama’s 2011 budget targets what the IRS calls the growing problem of so-called transfer pricing. The technique allows companies to reduce their tax bills by transferring intangible property such as patents, trademarks and licenses to offshore subsidiaries.
The Business Software Alliance (BSA), a Washington-based trade group that represents technology companies, said it would “educate policymakers” on how the proposal would hurt US companies, jobs and the economy.
Software and computer companies such as Microsoft Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co. and Dell Inc. are gearing up to fight an Obama administration plan to curb offshore tax avoidance.
The $15.5 billion proposal in President Barack Obama’s 2011 budget targets what the Internal Revenue Service calls the growing problem of so-called transfer pricing. The technique allows companies to reduce their tax bills by transferring intangible property such as patents, trademarks and licenses to offshore subsidiaries.
“Microsoft ramps up its lobbying team,” according to another report (among others):
Microsoft is fortifying its congressional lobbying team as major issues that could affect them begin to work their way through Capitol Hill this year. The software firm has hired Christina Pearson to join its Washington office as senior director for public relations.
And also:
WASHINGTON: Microsoft named Christina Pearson the senior director of PR in the company’s Washington office, effective February 15.
Pearson, most recently an SVP at Fleishman-Hillard, is a former assistant secretary for public affairs at the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). She replaces Ginny Terzano, who was hired to lead the communications practice at Dewey Square Group. Pearson reports to Lori Harnick, senior director of PR, who continues to oversee public affairs.
That’s just more lobbying. It’s interesting to see a move into the Dewey Square Group, which relates to illegal Microsoft AstroTurfing [1, 2, 3, 4].
Washington may soon be broke. So perhaps now is not the best time for Rep. Ross Hunter to suggest one of the state’s richest companies get a tax break.
In 1997, Microsoft opened a small office in Reno, Nevada. Why? So they could avoid paying $100 million a year in software royalty taxes.
Seattle Times Microsoft Tax Dodge Coverage Only Found in Comments
Microsoft’s alleged dodging of over $1 billion in Washington state Royalty taxes may or may not be illegal. It may or may not be unethical. But it’s certainly news.
The P-I, Crosscut, KUOW, HorsesAss, TechFlash, BoingBoing, the U.K.’s Guardian, Huffington Post and Seattle Weekly all think so. The Seattle Times does not.
We’ve mentioned this before. At The Seattle Times they also glorify and whitewash Gates’ character, whereas The Seattle Weekly was also willing to help expose and cover Microsoft fraud [1, 2]. Another bad publication is the Seattle P-I, which is like a 24/7 advertisement for Microsoft, but the staff there declined from about 150 to just 8 or so. █
Summary: Response to a new claim that the BSA is good for Free Software (the reality is more complex than it may seem)
WHEN does the BSA cross the line and become helpful to Free software in the same sense that banks running Windows provide an advert to GNU/Linux (due to Windows’ failings)? We previously showed that BSA lobbying played a role in characterising Free software as illegal. Setting aside the Microsoft/Gates (senior) roots in the BSA [1, 2], one might reach the conclusion that the BSA not only enforces the rules of proprietary software; in order to defend its existence, the BSA also attacks the right of Free software to exist.
Nonetheless, here is an opinion piece which insists that the BSA is good for Free Software because of the intimidating crackdowns.
There are a few good reasons why open source fans should support the Business Software Alliance.
I’ve never made a secret of the fact that I dislike the Business Software Alliance (BSA). It’s questionable statistics and its sweeping generalisations make for annoying reading at the best of times. But recently I’ve been thinking that perhaps open source advocates should get behind the BSA.
The reality is not that simple and the main question is, does the benefit of BSA aggression outweigh the negatives? It’s an open question.
Several times I have written about “Software Piracy”, and I think a lot of my readers get a little tired of hearing about it, but something happened this week that started me thinking about Software Piracy again.
Microsoft made Software Piracy Prevention a voluntary thing.
Of course Microsoft will probably pitch a different explanation, but what they actually did was post an “update” to Windows 7 that had lots of anti-piracy software in it, and told their customers that it was “voluntary” to install the anti-piracy software.
Now this was probably in response to another time when Microsoft tried to force down the throats, er….ah…”distribute” anti-piracy software for Windows XP, but that time they called it “critical bug fixes” and made a lot of their customers mad because they installed the “bug fixes” and ….hello! The “fixes” did not fix any bugs, and in some cases caused the customer’s systems to act in very bad ways. Very, very bad ways! And of course Microsoft’s customers then acted in very, very bad ways.
This is a subject that we covered some days ago, as well as last week. Generally speaking, pressure on users of proprietary software is always a good thing for Free software, but those who apply this pressure are also lobbying against Free software and the pressure they apply to users gives them money and thus more power to lobby (self enrichment). Microsoft’s “Under NO circumstances lose to Linux” approach shows how far they would go. Consider Munich for example. Slashdot reported that “Steve Ballmer’s recent trip to Munich to offer up to 90% rebates for the Microsoft Software Assurance and Licenses was in vain.” Microsoft is cracking down and pricing down selectively, so it’s not so simple after all.
Nearly forgot to mention the Microsoft-Cabinet Office’s latest Child Protection wheeze I blogged about last time.
Have a care if your children have access to IE8 and CEOPS; at a click you could be in the frame as a potential abuser.
This little list will do for the time being.
If I were still a teacher I would be mightily fed up with the above.
If we want to extend learning using modern technology, as most politicians seem to wish to do, then we need to sort out how it should be used.
Meanwhile teachers: band together and boycott ICT that’ll give them a fright.
This IE8 promotion from the government is quite a fiasco that we wrote about last week. But given the relationship we have witnessed between the UK government and the BSA, for example, none of this is terribly surprising. It’s a brutal pairing [1, 2, 3]. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA