"Ian Hilliard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
amicus_curious wrote:
"Rjack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
With the advent of the Obama administration, it is generally
expected that the Justice Department and the FTC will become much
more aggressive in antitrust enforcement matters.
With Microsoft's OS share hovering around 90%,
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
how can Microsoft best subtly assist OSX and Linux in order to
avert antitrust prosecutions under the new administration that will
resemble those in the EU?
I think that the Obama administration is more likely to consider the
adverse
effect of such silly prosecution on the overall economy. Consider that
Microsoft is a large company that generates more than 60B worth of
revenue
per year. Why would the Obama administration try to hold them in check?
Why would they favor replacing that 60B company with a collection of open
sourcerers who rely on trade in kind and are adverse to such levels of
profits? Would destroying Microsoft help the economy? I don't think so
and I doubt that Obama's advisors are going to recommend that course of
action.
Microsoft has absorbed the EU fines with ease since their prices in the
EU
are significantly higher than elsewhere in the world. They will stay in
the EU as long as it is profitable to do so and so far it has been.
Large corporations, like Microsoft, are extremely good at tax avoidance.
In
Microsoft's case, it appears that Microsoft are not paying tax on the
income made outside the US as this all goes through Ireland, where the tax
bill is much lower. The tax money going to Ireland is not helping the US
economy.
But it presumably helps Ireland and the rest over there. What is your
point?
Microsoft is taking its profits to buy back its own shares. It is my
understanding that that is considered an operating expense and as such the
money is not taxable.
You have a faulty understanding.
Large corporations like Microsoft are also offshoring their work as fast
as
they can. They are not increasing the employment in the US, they are
reducing it.
You offer no evidence of this.
The simple fact is that a large number of middle sized companies doing the
same work as Microsoft would be much better for the US economy than the
one
big Microsoft.
How could that be? Would consumers benefit by paying more for the same
thing?
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
