Unfortunately for you, I have been reading... And I haven't seen your evidence of a "slush fund". (and no, repeating "slush fund" over and over isn't evidence.)
Question: If you can beat a free software bid, and licensing for your software normally costs millions, wouldn't you say they offered at a loss?
I ask for proof... And it sounds like you want me to prove it for you? LOL!
MS's bid was 27M euros; and the unnamed OSS bidder was ~30M euros. Yet with no knowledge of the details, you claim that MS's offer was at a loss. That's why I'm not taking you seriously.
If you're trying to make the case that MS isn't allowed to give their software away for free and make their profits from services, go for it. It might be mildly entertaining to watch you try this route.
MS's bid was 27M euros; and the unnamed OSS bidder was ~30M euros.
It was originally much higher, but they dipped into the fund and played with licensing to get it lower. The still charged a lot for licensing, and that's why they had to dip into the fund to pay for services.