[blowfish]

Well, I am probably the least microsoft-friendly person around. But since Bush200 took his 'niceness vow' this week, I will help him out:
The main difference between your two examples is that a drug pusher's activities are clearly illegal. Microsoft's tactics, while pushing the envelope, are not *quite* outside the 'really aggressive business practice' realm. The intent might be the same, but Microsoft left themselves enough wiggle room to argue that recipients had the clearly-stated option to return the software.
Jeez, I'm defending Microsoft. Someone just slap me until I snap out of it...

[Howlin]

But since Bush200 took his 'niceness vow' this week, I will help him out:

ROFLMAO!

[hchutch]

Furthermore, this freebie is no different than what they give the private sector.

As Vic Deakins once said, "I don't see what the big deal is."

[coloradan]

The only difference is that drugs are contraband and software isn't. Bribes are illegal, and "gifts" that might influence purchase decisions for government agencies are arguably bribes, even if the decision isn't made because of the niceness of the gift, but because only future purchases will be compatible with the gifts.

[coloradan]

Pushees are free to return drugs, too.

[steve-b]

The main difference between your two examples is that a drug pusher's activities are clearly illegal.

Er, giving a gift over $50 to a government employee whose agency does business with you or regulates you is every bit as "clearly illegal" as a storage locker full of crack cocaine.

[N3WBI3]

its ok I agree the drug pushing analogy is over the top...