Replies

The article paints a picture of a company which is trying to adapt to a new type of competition and succeed.

So I take it you retract your position that the slush fund doesn't exist. Note also that they are also allowed to give free services in order to win contracts.

I never said illegal, I said it raises questions of legality. The laws for government contracting are quite strict, which is probably why I haven't heard of Microsoft dipping into the fund to win government contracts. On the other hand, it could be because the government is so insanely MS-centric and doesn't even consider alternate bidders (as regulations generally require of all other things).

In any case, their motive isn't to compete, it is to kill. MS cannot stamp out Linux like it did Netscape, so they have to try a different tactic -- sell services at a loss if necessary to undercut Linux-based bids in order to keep it out of the enterprise. MS is already trying to kill it on other ends, with examples of its "Embrace, Extend, Eliminate" philosophy.

In the end, the point is that MS's actions are competetive, but go too far into the realm of anti-competitiveness.

So I take it you retract your position that the slush fund doesn't exist.

Your reference didn't mention a slush fund. Besides, the article clearly stated that Microsoft had no intention of selling at a loss. A "fund" implies that a bank account exists somewhere. In this case, we're only talking about an intention to sell at a discount. That can be accomplished without a single penny in any "account". "Funds" are used for buying, not selling.

In any case, their motive isn't to compete, it is to kill.

I've never heard of a business that wants their competition to survive.

...sell services at a loss if necessary to undercut Linux-based bids in order to keep it out of the enterprise.

Point out the part in your reference that backs up this claim. (Hint: It doesn't.) Your reference article was actually a pretty good article. I'll give you credit for that. But the article was quite clear that nothing was sold at a loss.

I never said illegal, I said it raises questions of legality.

Well, you said that you would deny any contract awards to Microsoft if their "slush fund" was used. Presumed guilty until proven innocent???...

[antiRepublicrat:] If someone were targeting an RFP towards a Linux system and somehow the Microsoft bid came in lower (without using their slush fund), then Microsoft would have to get the contract.