dwazou
Microsoft essentially created a private sales tax on every computer sold in the world. This is how Bill Gates became extraordinary wealthy.
The US should have won that anti-trust case. If you want to understand how Gates saved Microsoft, read this 1998 investigation that I found in newspaper archives :
HOW MICROSOFT SOUGHT TO GAIN ALLIES AND INFLUENCE IN WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON -- Twenty months ago, Rep. Billy Tauzin walked into the office of Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft, bearing a 10-inch-by-10-inch white box and a warning.
Tauzin, R-La., the chairman of a subcommittee that oversees the telecommunications industry, placed the box on Gates' desk. Inside was a lemon meringue pie, a reminder of another pie that had been thrown in Gates' face several weeks earlier by a Microsoft critic.
The message to Gates, the richest man on earth and the leader of the digital world, was blunt: You need to make friends in Washington.
At the time of Tauzin's visit in early 1998, the Justice Department was contemplating filing its antitrust suit against Microsoft.
"I told him he was being demonized," Tauzin said in an interview. "I said he had to win the antitrust case in court, but there was also the court of public opinion."
Gates apparently took Tauzin's message to heart -- with a vengeance. While Microsoft and its executives contributed a relatively modest $60,000 to Republican Party committees in 1997, the company's contributions in 1998 shot up to $470,000 as part of its overall political contribution of $1.3 million. The 1998 figure included donations to political candidates, with the bulk of the money going to Republicans.
This year, the company's contributions of nearly $600,000 have been more evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, according to Federal Election Commission records.
Microsoft's lobbying, focused on swaying Congress and creating a generally friendlier climate in Washington, has had little if any effect on the current antitrust litigation in U.S. District Court, where the company was dealt a major setback on Friday by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's initial findings that it had used monopoly power to stifle competition.
Rather, the lobbying campaign is a long-term strategic push intended to alter the political terrain where future power struggles will be fought.
Campaign donations were just one element of Microsoft's multimillion-dollar effort to win allies in Washington. The company also poured millions of dollars into an aggressive public relations and political offensive, hiring an armada of well-connected lobbyists and underwriting the work of research groups, academics and consultants who have made arguments sympathetic to Microsoft's defense in the antitrust case.
The company's lobbying budget nearly doubled in 1998 from the previous year, to $3.74 million, according to the company's lobbying disclosure reports, and is on pace this year to significantly surpass that figure.
Gates and his top lieutenants have made dozens of trips to Washington, cultivating powerful figures in both parties and hiring some of the city's priciest lobbyists.
Microsoft has retained Haley Barbour, former chairman of the Republican National Committee; Vic Fazio, a former Democratic congressman from California; Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman from Minnesota; Tom Downey, a former Democratic congressman from New York and a close friend of Vice President Al Gore; Mark Fabiani, former special counsel to the Clinton White House; and Kerry Knott, former chief of staff to Rep. Dick Armey of Texas, the House majority leader.
Microsoft has also given hundreds of thousands of dollars to research groups, trade groups, polling operations, public relations concerns and grass-roots organizations. It has financed op-ed pieces and full-page newspaper advertisements, and mounted a lobbying effort against an increase in the Justice Department's antitrust enforcement budget.
In June, Bill Gates met for lunch with the Republican leaders of the House in the small whip's room off the House chamber. They discussed Microsoft's public policy agenda, ranging from exports of encryption software to Internet privacy to antitrust actions, said several participants at the meeting. Knott, now a top official in Microsoft's Washington office, attended the session.
Eight days later, Armey introduced what he called his "e-Contract," a list of Republican legislative initiatives that pointedly adopted Microsoft's view of the role of government antitrust actions, like the one that now threatens to dismantle Microsoft.
"When federal agencies use heavy-handed tactics to target specific companies," the Republican document states in language that echoes Microsoft's own, "the real message they send to the market place is this: You could be next."
Armey's aides insist that the release of the document was just a coincidence and that Republicans had long opposed aggressive enforcement of antitrust laws. Microsoft officials also denied that they had influenced Armey's priorities or his language. The package of Republican proposals is still before Congress.
Another Microsoft move on Capitol Hill drew criticism for heavy-handedness.
It is lobbying to trim the antitrust division's budget brought a flurry of editorial condemnation. The Washington Post said Microsoft's actions were "a comical caricature" of a company trying to bully its way through Washington."
One Justice Department official said, "Even the mob doesn't try to whack a prosecutor during a trial."
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/11/biztech/articles/07strategy.html
The reason why Apple displaced Microsoft as the richest company in the world? Billionaire Tim Cook is using tactics that are even more predatory. If you make any purchase with an app, Apple takes a 30% cut. And if the app makers refuse, Apple murders their business by kicking them out of the App store.
They banned the videogame Fortnite because the developers tried to resist:
These tech billionaires are economic tyrants. They want to use technology in order to enslave consumers and workers. They want customers to have no choice. They want their suppliers to be powerless. They want workers to have a limited number of huge employers. Their dream is absolute power over the market.
Fuck economic tyrants.
Only idiots kiss their ass.
I hope the wonderful British people will not accept these lies.
These people have a monopoly over your water. They have been ROBBING YOU for decades to buy yachts and luxury cars. And you know the worst thing? They are using the money they robbed from you to fund Water UK, a lobbying organization giving money to political parties and pressuring MPs.
Anything short of nationalization is a scam
Anything short of nationalization is a scam
Anything short of nationalization is a scam
You are dealing with lawless criminals wearing suits. Sending nice letters isn't going to be enough.
These kind of surveys can sound alarmist.
From the United Kingdom:
Fewer than 2% believe educational institutions take racism seriously.
88% participants reported experiencing racial discrimination in the workplace.
Sounds scary right?
I'm not White. I have been to Britain. I can honestly say Britain is probably one of the most open-minded and tolerant countries in the world.
My native country is far FAR more racist than Canada, France or Britain. Actual Racism. Actual hatred. Not "I had a bad day, it's maybe racism".
I'm not British. There are many things that I admire about the United Kingdom.
This is the nation that produced Agatha Christie, Jane Austen, George Orwell, JK Rowling, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Elton John, David Attenborough. Led Zeppelin, Aldous Huxley, JRR Tolkien.
But the one thing that disturbs me is the unbelievable level of corruption.
In Britain, political parties can raise millions of pounds from one single individual. Private corporations, including foreign corporations, are allowed to give large amounts of money to political parties. Several members of the UK parliament currently work as consultants and lawyers for large corporations such as Thames Water or HSBC. This is all legal.
Compare this to France.
In France, no individual is allowed to give more than 7000 pounds to a political party. Corporations are banned from giving money to political parties. Members of parliament are all banned from having second-jobs. And if you break these rules, an independent agency (HATVP) has the power to criminally prosecute you.
Why did France pass these tough rules ? Huge corruption scandals
France had one President (Nicolas Sarkozy) sell access to his donors
When the French media revealed these scandals, the French political class was so embarrassed that it actually forced them to take action.
The British had similar corruption scandals.
David Cameron was caught selling access to Downing Street in exchange of money:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/mar/26/david-cameron-private-dinners-tory-donors
Boris Johnson was also caught selling access to Downing Street in exchange of money:
https://www.ft.com/content/8c6041ff-a223-43e9-9e45-53c3f7cf47f7
Yet the British political class did... absolutely nothing !!! No reform...
Similar scandals have led to completely different legislative outcomes.
In Britain, the rot runs deep.
What the fuck does your parents profession have to with with anything?
Everything? This data allows you to see if children of sales assistants, restaurant workers, janitors, are underrepresented. It allows you to measure social mobility and meritocracy.
All French universities gather anonymous data about the professions of your parents. That way, it can be studied by social scientists:
If kids of low-income people don't have the same chances to study at leading university, it means the education system needs to improve meritocracy. Otherwise, you end up living in a caste society.
Anglosphere countries seem to care primarly about race.
This obsession about race is something I will never understand about anglosphere culture.
Britain, Canada and the United States have really gone off the rail.
In French culture, it is considered completely obscene to ask people about their race. In fact, that's illegal. Employers and universities can be criminally prosecuted if they start gathering data about skin color. The only question universities ask you is the profession of your parents.