12.28.08
Gemini version available ♊︎How the Microsoft Kickbacks Cycle Works
IT REALLY ought to be added, further to this previous post which only alluded to political influence, that Microsoft has a nice cycle going on. Microsoft earns money, some of which is passed to personal accounts, such as Gates’ (Foundation), which can then be funneled back into governments, whose representatives in turn feel obliged to excessively pay Microsoft for software (e.g. BECTA and the NHS in the UK). The way this is set up, politicians and Microsoft get rich in a closed cycle of money and/or favours, where the only ‘feeder’ is the taxpayer. GNU/Linux companies are locked out of this cycle because they can’t introduce kickbacks and such.
This is also how Microsoft can ensure that all kids are raised to think that Windows is an integral part of each computer and anything different from it is alien and difficult. In other words, the very same funds or so-called ‘donations’ Microsoft brags about are usually the equivalent of free drugs to schools, which later bring a lot more revenue. Microsoft tried to brag about such donations at the end of 2008, but it neglected to mention what type of donations they were. Many of them do a lot more harm than good. They keep an addictive and harmful cycle alive. █
“Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won’t leave you alone.”
–Richard Stallman
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
pcolon said,
December 28, 2008 at 2:49 pm
I read the Seattle blog that references software ‘donation’.
How can it be considered a valid donation if you control its prices. That is, they’re dumping windows on developing countries at 0$, doing the netbooks at $5, and then probably elevating its value for education to the max.
Roy Schestowitz said,
December 28, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Yes, read that too. See the comments.
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/157903.asp
Roy Schestowitz said,
December 28, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I think we ought to start calling it Addictionware or Drugware.