4 ms·

> Microsoft is the heart of corporate America, it's a facepalm to imagine that any dollar they spend isn't in their own long term interest to make money. It wou

> Microsoft is the heart of corporate America, it's a facepalm to imagine that any dollar they spend isn't in their own long term interest to make money. It would be illegal for them not to. You can apply that to any large corporation but the problem is by definition how Microsoft makes money. Feel free to show me which part of the criminal code "not making money" falls under. You want to rant about EEE (irrelevant for decades now) or some other silly plan to undermine open source development, feel free. But expect to be called out for your pointless drivel at the same time. I'm fine with being cautious about Microsoft. I think at this point it's no longer necessary, but sure I can understand that. But the EEE plot-line is a 20 year old joke. It's not funny anymore.

rainbowmverse 8y ago
The person you replied to is probably referring to the concept of fiduciary duty which is often mentioned alongside discussions of public companies. I don't know anything about it though.
- jhall1468 8y ago
  I agree, but calling it "illegal to not make a profit" is patently false.
mimimi31 8y ago
>Feel free to show me which part of the criminal code "not making money" falls under. I don't really know anything about US laws, but I think they do have to act in the interest of their shareholders, i.e. make them more money.
- jhall1468 8y ago
  Right but profit can be both long-term and short-term and often one requires sacrificing the other, which is why calling it "illegal" was completely incorrect.
- coredog64 8y ago
  Not to dogpile, but it's essentially a naive take on the Ford vs. Dodge case. It's usually trotted out as "proof" of the evils of capitalism. As such it ignores nearly 100 years of evidence to the contrary. (My view of capitalism meshes with Churchill's view of democracy: It's the worst except for all the others)
Teckla 8y ago
I'm fine with being cautious about Microsoft. I think at this point it's no longer necessary, but sure I can understand that. But the EEE plot-line is a 20 year old joke. It's not funny anymore. It's never time to stop being cautious about megacorps. To think that Microsoft spent $7.5 billion for altruistic reasons, without a plan to actually turn a profit on the purchase, is dangerously naive.
- jhall1468 8y ago
  > To think that Microsoft spent $7.5 billion for altruistic reasons, without a plan to actually turn a profit on the purchase, is dangerously naive. You thinking tech companies don't have loss-leaders is naive.
zimablue 8y ago
I think your response misses the point of my post. The point wasn't that they're trying to undermine Open Source, the point was that they fundamentally and unavoidably make their huge profits by extracting rent from a platform that they try to force everybody onto. They don't sell support, expertise or individual products. They get you in, lock you in and then charge rent. In infra teams in the UK at least the guys used to call it "Microsoft rent" with a straight face. The motivations of a company where that has and always will be the game plan are antithetical to someone who identifies freedom of coding with freedom of thought and expression. "We are pro open source except our entire business model which is build around a closed source platform on which we sell closed source products" Yeah they're worse than they could be but that's not really the central point. The legal thing you asked for a source on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co. Some people dissent from this reading of the case but it's also not that important, in practice they act like this.

rainbowmverse 8y ago

The person you replied to is probably referring to the concept of fiduciary duty which is often mentioned alongside discussions of public companies. I don't know anything about it though.

jhall1468 8y ago
I agree, but calling it "illegal to not make a profit" is patently false.

mimimi31 8y ago

>Feel free to show me which part of the criminal code "not making money" falls under. I don't really know anything about US laws, but I think they do have to act in the interest of their shareholders, i.e. make them more money.

jhall1468 8y ago
Right but profit can be both long-term and short-term and often one requires sacrificing the other, which is why calling it "illegal" was completely incorrect.
coredog64 8y ago
Not to dogpile, but it's essentially a naive take on the Ford vs. Dodge case. It's usually trotted out as "proof" of the evils of capitalism. As such it ignores nearly 100 years of evidence to the contrary. (My view of capitalism meshes with Churchill's view of democracy: It's the worst except for all the others)

Teckla 8y ago

I'm fine with being cautious about Microsoft. I think at this point it's no longer necessary, but sure I can understand that. But the EEE plot-line is a 20 year old joke. It's not funny anymore. It's never time to stop being cautious about megacorps. To think that Microsoft spent $7.5 billion for altruistic reasons, without a plan to actually turn a profit on the purchase, is dangerously naive.

jhall1468 8y ago
> To think that Microsoft spent $7.5 billion for altruistic reasons, without a plan to actually turn a profit on the purchase, is dangerously naive. You thinking tech companies don't have loss-leaders is naive.

zimablue 8y ago

I think your response misses the point of my post. The point wasn't that they're trying to undermine Open Source, the point was that they fundamentally and unavoidably make their huge profits by extracting rent from a platform that they try to force everybody onto. They don't sell support, expertise or individual products. They get you in, lock you in and then charge rent. In infra teams in the UK at least the guys used to call it "Microsoft rent" with a straight face. The motivations of a company where that has and always will be the game plan are antithetical to someone who identifies freedom of coding with freedom of thought and expression. "We are pro open source except our entire business model which is build around a closed source platform on which we sell closed source products" Yeah they're worse than they could be but that's not really the central point. The legal thing you asked for a source on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co. Some people dissent from this reading of the case but it's also not that important, in practice they act like this.