05.24.13
Microsoft Entryism and Its Effects on Corporate and Public Policy
“Entryism (also referred to as entrism, occasionally as enterism) is a political strategy in which an organisation or state encourages its members or supporters to join another, usually larger organisation in an attempt to expand influence and expand their ideas and program. In situations where the organization being “entered” is hostile to entrism, the entrists may engage in a degree of subterfuge to hide the fact that they are an organisation in their own right. In some cases the alleged entryists perceive themselves as supporters of a newspaper and not members of an organization.” –Wikipedia
Summary: An aspect of Microsoft culture that ought not be overlooked because of its profound effect on society (private and public)
THE other day, a site owned by a former employer of mine said that “Bob Muglia, executive vice president of software solutions at Juniper Networks, is no stranger to the world of software. Muglia spent over two decades at Microsoft, where he helped define its software vision. Before joining Juniper in 2012, Muglia had been the president of Microsoft’s server and tools business.”
This is true, but there is a wider picture here. I am not chastising the author, who is actually one of the best FOSS-centric authors around. It just takes more guts to take journalism further. Prior to him joining Juniper the CEO of the company came from Microsoft and appointed many people around him (CxO level) from Microsoft. It was the same when it comes to VMware and Nokia (to a lesser degree in the latter). It didn’t take long for Juniper to spread Linux/Android FUD and for Nokia to attack Linux/Android with patents. The important thing here is this: it can be framed as a matter of entryism, where one earns a position of power (sometimes in exchange for money, or bribe) and then surrounds him/herself with former colleagues.
“The ‘justice’ Motorola gets in Seattle is like the Justice Samsung can get in the US when the plaintiff, Apple, is US-based.”This observation is particularly worth making in the context of the public sector. We often see the profound effects of putting a former Microsoft or Gates executive in charge of nonprofit institutions, including government institutions. It leads to legalisation of gross tax evasion by Microsoft and Gates and it influences competition or regulation policies. We gave dozens of examples over the years and it is hard to choose and highlight any particular one.
Not too long ago a discriminatory (Microsoft-only) government procurement policy was challenged by ESOP [1, 2], resulting in this press release. It is likely, although not trivial to prove, that here too some kind of bribe was involved, or at least a case of entryism.
It should be noted that not only Microsoft benefits from tax evasion loopholes Apple too does it and there are many reports about it, e.g. this one (there have been dozens more this week). Apple is at least as bad as Microsoft in many areas and Apple fans are reportedly not as happy about their “iPhones” as they were before. On the FRAND front, Apple and Microsoft work together against Android, with Microsoft relying on bias in Seattle [1, 2] courts (many in positions of power in Seattle came from Microsoft and reporters in the area try trial by media, in Microsoft’s favour of course). This summer it will be Seattle residents involved in this trial too. As Pamela Jones put it: “The next phase of the Microsoft v. Motorola litigation in Seattle will begin on August 26th. It will be a jury trial, as Motorola requested. I hope some of you are nearby and can attend. This will be the part about Microsoft’s claims of breach of contract based on its assertion that Motorola violated a RAND contract by its opening bid being allegedly too high.” The ‘justice’ Motorola gets in Seattle is like the Justice Samsung can get in the US when the plaintiff, Apple, is US-based [1, 2]. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA