Microsoft

The Truth about Bill Gates and why most of the super wealthy don't earn their money
https://www.quora.com/Is-Bill-Gates-evil

Bill Gates is a thief and robber baron on a massive scale not seen since the late 1800s. He didn’t actually invent “any” of the technologies you are referring to… almost all of those technologies existed decades before Microsoft was founded. The underlying structure of Windows and all related Microsoft products was invented by US universities using public (government-provided) funds; or by IBM; or by Xerox in their Palo Alto Research Center (also known as Xerox PARC).

What Bill Gates “did” do, is incorporate those technologies into software his company made - and then took advantage of general computer illiteracy to hoodwink the US Patent Office into approving patents for his products. Although others had built operating system before Gates, using the same underlying technologies, no one else tried to patent those technologies before because it’s not legal to copyright publicly-funded work performed at universities.

He then sued every one of his competitors, using funds leveraged by borrowing from his VERY rich parents (No Bill Gates is not a rags-to-riches success story in any way. He was born extremely wealthy and would have died super-rich even if he never earned a penny on his own.); or else obtained by other means that many courts have repeatedly determined to be fraudulent.

He literally out-lawyered and out-spent smaller competitors - most of whom had legitimate claims to their intellectual property that he simply stole by incorporating it into his own products without any acknowledgement or payment - until they went out of business because of the cost of legal battles.

He then entered into a partnership with IBM to build PC’s for them… and stole the computer code and related technologies IBM built for the “OS/1” and “OS/2” products. He then entered into a partnership with NeXt Computing and did the same thing to them - Microsoft’s lawyers are the primary reason NeXt went out of business, even though NeXt built much better products than anyone else at the time (including the first color GUI and first integration with the mouse for commercial use). He stole most of the code for Office products by copyrighting work of US universities or much-smaller commercial competitors; and then suing those same universities or business competitors until they gave up their patents or granted nearly-free licensing rights to Microsoft (universities); or went out of business (smaller competitors).

In reality, Microsoft didn’t invent any of the code or hardware innovations underlying windows and office and related products. For example:

The mouse was invented as a taxpayer funded research project in 1962 while Bill Gates was still in elementary school. Plug-and-play hardware & software was invented in 1969 while Gates was still in high school. The base code for the windows operating system graphical interface (GUI) was invented in 1970, several years before Microsoft came into being as a company. Colorized GUIs with fully integrated keyboard, mouse, plug-in play hardware, and portable CPU and screen - were invented in 1974. This was before Microsoft came into being as a company, while Gates was still a college sophomore. Email software was invented in the mid-1960s. HTML was invented in the late 1960s. GUI email software was invented in the early 1970s. GUI spreadsheet software was invented in the mid-1970s. Etc, etc… all well before Microsoft was formed as a company, mostly while Bill Gates was still in elementary or high school. What you may not be aware of is that Bill Gates owns many media companies and multiple news outlets. Gates spent a very large fortune planting old-media and internet news stories touting his genius and philanthropy. The sum total of all Bm Gates’ charitable contributions amount to less than 2.3% of his enormous wealth.

There’s a gold-plated train to hell reserved for people like Bill Gates.

Rural_squirrel

Speaking as an older computer guy who lived through the era of Microsoft's rise: this is mostly wrong. Although I agree that Microsoft was not very innovative, nearly all of the details are wrong.

Microsoft did not get big by using patents. That never happened. Microsoft also did not steal "the computer code and related technologies IBM built for the “OS/1” and “OS/2” products." There never was even a thing called "OS/1".

Microsoft started out by selling a BASIC interpreter to microcomputer manufacturers. Then they sold other products to consumers and manufactures, many related to programming languages.

When IBM wanted to get into the PC business, it went looking for a partner to create an operating system for the new computer. IBM approached Gary and Dorothy Kildall of Digital Research, the creators of CP/M, which was the leading operating system for 8-bit microcomputers. The Kildalls famously would not agree to IBM's terms, at first even refusing to sign the non-disclosure agreement (NDA) so that they could negotiate in secret (and not let IBM's competitors know that they were creating a PC). Kildall also said that he couldn't have a 16-bit operating system ready by the time IBM wanted it.

IBM then made a deal with Bill Gates. Microsft purchased the rights to 86-DOS (also called QDOS) from Seattle Computer Products. Microsoft also hired the programmer who wrote 86-DOS. This was the basis for PC-DOS, as IBM called the operating system, and MS-DOS, Microsoft's version of the operating system sold for other systems.

Microsoft also made a deal with Apple (the writer is apparently confusing NeXT with Apple) to create software for their new Macintosh system and to get the right to use elements of the Macintosh system in their own products. Microsoft created Windows from that. Apple later sued Microsoft: "Apple had agreed to license certain parts of its GUI to Microsoft for use in Windows 1.0, but when Microsoft made changes in Windows 2.0 adding overlapping windows and other features found in the Macintosh GUI, Apple filed suit. Apple added additional claims to the suit when Microsoft released Windows 3.0."

This lawsuit was a huge overreach on Apple's part, both from a contractual standpoint (their claim centering around the contract's grants of rights on "derivative works") and, more importantly, their claim that copyright law covered the overall "look and feel" of programs. If Apple had succeeded on that front, they would would have exclusive rights to the interfaces similar to the Macintosh for 95 years. This would have been disastrous to computer users, since every computer program would then have to make their program as different as possible from every other computer program that came before them. Think about what it would be like if you drove a Mercedes using a steering wheel and pedals on the floor, but a Ford using a stick for steering a lever to control the throttle, and on a Chrysler you would use buttons and knobs, etc.

As to the claim about Microsoft Office, this is fiction. There were computer systems dedicated to word processing from both big companies —IBM's Displaywriter— and smaller companies, like Redactron and Wang Laboratories. People then created microcomputer word processing programs, like Electric Pencil, Wordstar, Magic Wand, and dozens of other. Microsoft Word was just one among many.

Microsoft Excel was created in imitation of Lotus 1-2-3, which was created in imitation of (and great improvement on) Visicalc. Microsoft Excel, especially the Macintosh version, was really a very, very good program on its own merits. Microsoft didn't steal any code for Microsoft Office. The lead programmer on Microsoft Office was Charles Simonyi, an extremely talented programmer who became a Microsoft billionaire and was able to become one of the few space tourists because of it. Lotus 1-2-3 continued to exist and Lotus was eventually bought by IBM.

The reasons for Microsoft's success:

Competence. Microsoft was able to deliver software consistently in a timely manner. Lots of other companies just failed at this.

Good choices on what markets to enter. Gates dropped out of Harvard because he thought he would miss his chance if he waited two more years to start a business. When Apple created the Macintosh, he immediately embraced the GUI concept, creating software for the Macintosh and creating Windows. He recognized the importance of the World Wide Web and made Microsoft become internet-centric.

Luck. Microsoft became the vendor for IBM's PC operating system. When PC clones arrived (Compaq, Dell, Gateway, etc.), Microsoft had MS-DOS ready for them and a huge torrent of cash came in, allowing Microsoft to do whatever it wanted.

Aggressive marketing and use of exclusive deals with computer manufacturers. PC vendors needed MS-DOS and, later, Windows. Microsoft made them sign deals to not have other operating systems and to bundle other Microsoft software, such as Office, on their systems. This was the most controversial part of Microsoft's business, and what eventually led to the antitrust action against them.

Software patent battles were not a big part of what was going on in the software business in the 1980s and 1990s and I don't remember Microsoft initiating any lawsuits or any threats over patents until 2003, long after their rise to dominance.

Also, Gates came from a rich family, but they were not billionaires. He would not be "super-rich" if he never created Microsoft. Their wealth allowed him to go to a private school which had computer access, which was highly unusual at the time. And he went to Harvard for a couple of years. He was able to raise some start-up capital from them and some of their friends, which was important in Microsoft's early years. Apparently his parent's contacts were also helpful in his coming to the attention of Microsoft when they needed an operating system. The assertion that "the sum total of all Bill Gates’ charitable contributions amount to less than 2.3% of his enormous wealth" is also wrong.