Misplaced Pages

Criticism of Microsoft: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:05, 27 October 2006 editAgne27 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers57,347 edits Fact tag for GA review. However, the entire first paragraph needs verification to get away from the "weasel wordish" tone. Ideally one good source that can verify all the claims← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:29, 20 December 2024 edit undoGreenC bot (talk | contribs)Bots2,548,645 edits Reformat 1 archive link. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:USURPURL and JUDI batch #20 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|none}} <!-- "none" is preferred when the title is sufficiently descriptive; see ] -->
'''Criticism of ]''' has followed the company's existence because of various aspects of its products and business practices. Lack of ], ], and ] of the company's software are common targets for critics. More recently, ] and other exploits have plagued numerous users due to faults in the security of ] and other programs. Quite a few people also accuse ] of locking vendors into their products, and of not following and complying with existing standards in its own software and other products. {{fact}} ] comparisons of ] as well as ] to Windows are another contentious point of debate.
{{Use mdy dates|date=February 2022}}
'''Criticism of Microsoft''' has followed various aspects of its products and business practices. Issues with ], ], and ] of the company's software are common targets for critics. In the 2000s, a number of ] mishaps targeted security flaws in ] and other products. ] was also accused of locking vendors and consumers in to their products, and of not following or complying with existing standards in its software.<ref name="ecis-ms-history">{{cite web |url=http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf |title=Microsoft A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm |access-date=May 25, 2009 |date=March 31, 2009 |publisher=European Committee for Interoperable Systems |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090618155904/http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf |archive-date=June 18, 2009 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/04/25/writing_history_with_microsofts_office/|title=Writing history with Microsoft's Office lock-in|last=Orlowski|first=Andrew|date=April 25, 2003|website=]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190517044456/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/04/25/writing_history_with_microsofts_office/|archive-date=May 17, 2019|url-status=live|access-date=May 17, 2019}}</ref> ] comparisons between ] and Microsoft Windows are a continuous point of debate.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cioupdate.com/budgets/article.php/1477911/Linux-TCO-Less-Than-Half-The-Cost-of-Windows.htm |title=Linux TCO: Less Than Half The Cost of Windows |access-date=January 29, 2015 |last=Orzech |first=Dan |date=April 29, 2009 |work=CIO Updates |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150208071606/http://www.cioupdate.com/budgets/article.php/1477911/Linux-TCO-Less-Than-Half-The-Cost-of-Windows.htm |archive-date=February 8, 2015 |url-status=dead }}</ref>


The company has been in numerous ] by several governments and other companies for what some consider to be unlawful monopolistic practices. In 2004, the ] found Microsoft guilty in a highly-publicized ] case. ] has bought and acquired multiple companies and is sometimes accused of doing so to suppress some of the products that could hurt the bottom line of the company. Additionally, Microsoft's ] for some of its programs is often criticized as being too restrictive as well as being against ] software. The company has been the subject of numerous ], brought by several governments and by other companies, for unlawful monopolistic practices. In 2004, the ] found Microsoft guilty in the '']'' case, and it received an 899 million euro fine.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/microsoft-eu/eu-fines-microsoft-record-899-million-euros-idUSBRU00634320080227|title=EU fines Microsoft record 899 million euros|website=]|access-date=August 31, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190831090402/https://www.reuters.com/article/microsoft-eu/eu-fines-microsoft-record-899-million-euros-idUSBRU00634320080227|archive-date=August 31, 2019|url-status=dead}}</ref>


== Ties to US Government departments ==
Criticism of the company has resulted in it being deemed "the ]" by some.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bbspot.com/News/2000/4/MS_Buys_Evil.html|title=Microsoft Purchases Evil From Satan}}</ref> In a sci-fi allusion, ] has also been called "The ]" after the fictional race of aliens in the ] universe. It reflects the perception that ] often acquires technology from other companies rather than developing it in-house, as well as to ]'s ability to adapt to and overwhelm its opponents' strategies.{{fact}}
On September 14, 2019, Microsoft's flagship store was shut down by protestors as part of a ] organized by Close the Camps NYC. The action was in response to Microsoft's $19.4&nbsp;million contract with ] (ICE).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/14/us/anti-ice-protesters-arrested/index.html|title=76 anti-ICE protesters arrested during New York sit-in|first=Amir |last=Vera|date=September 14, 2019|publisher=CNN|access-date=September 19, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190920112742/https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/14/us/anti-ice-protesters-arrested/index.html|archive-date=September 20, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/abolish-ice-protesters-face-off-with-police-in-midtown-video/ar-AAHiDbr|title='Abolish ICE' protesters face off with police in midtown |publisher=MSN|access-date=September 19, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190915095323/https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/abolish-ice-protesters-face-off-with-police-in-midtown-video/ar-AAHiDbr|archive-date=September 15, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://medium.com/@CloseTheCampsNY/release-protestors-demand-microsoft-stop-profiteering-from-concentration-camps-immigrant-raids-6f86f9848950|title=RELEASE — PROTESTORS DEMAND MICROSOFT STOP PROFITEERING FROM CONCENTRATION CAMPS, IMMIGRANT RAIDS AND DEPORTATIONS|last=NYC|first=Close the Camps|date=September 14, 2019|website=Medium|language=en|access-date=September 19, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190918231803/https://medium.com/@CloseTheCampsNY/release-protestors-demand-microsoft-stop-profiteering-from-concentration-camps-immigrant-raids-6f86f9848950|archive-date=September 18, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://www.windowscentral.com/76-anti-ice-protesters-arrested-microsoft-store-manhattan|title=76 anti-ICE protesters arrested at Microsoft Store in Manhattan|date=September 16, 2019|website=Windows Central|language=en|access-date=September 19, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190918035944/https://www.windowscentral.com/76-anti-ice-protesters-arrested-microsoft-store-manhattan|archive-date=September 18, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> Microsoft's relationship with the immigration enforcement agency was revealed by executive Tom Keane, through a company blog post that describes ICE's use of the company's high-security cloud storage product Azure Government.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://devblogs.microsoft.com/azuregov/federal-agencies-continue-to-advance-capabilities-with-azure-government/|title=Federal agencies continue to advance capabilities with Azure Government|date=January 24, 2018|website=Azure Government|language=en-US|access-date=September 19, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190919145748/https://devblogs.microsoft.com/azuregov/federal-agencies-continue-to-advance-capabilities-with-azure-government/|archive-date=September 19, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> He went on to say the company is "proud to support" the work of ICE.<ref name=":1" /> Microsoft has stated it "is not working with the U.S. government on any projects related to separating children from their families at the border."<ref name=":0" />


In February 2019, some of Microsoft’s employees protested the company's ] from a $480&nbsp;million contract to develop ] headsets for the ].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/22/microsoft-protest-us-army-augmented-reality-headsets|title='We won't be war profiteers': Microsoft workers protest $480m army contract|newspaper=The Guardian|date=February 22, 2019|last1=Wong|first1=Julia Carrie|author-link=Julia Carrie Wong|access-date=February 25, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190223133132/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/22/microsoft-protest-us-army-augmented-reality-headsets|archive-date=February 23, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>
==Products==
===Ease of use===
Microsoft's focus on software usability was a large factor in its early successes. However, Microsoft is often criticized for making features more important than ] and for allowing the user interface of its products to become inconsistent and overly complicated, frustrating users by actions which should be simple to perform and requiring interactive "]" to function as an extra layer between the user and the interface. Additionally, some advanced users find that these features get in the way of control and have a difficult time making Microsoft products, in particular Microsoft Windows, do what they want.


== Vendor lock-in ==
However, in its efforts to make its products more accessible to users, the default settings in some Microsoft software are often criticized for helping to facilitate the spread of computer viruses and worms. For example, Windows operating systems released since 1995 hide ]s by default, which can help malicious programmers trick unwitting ] recipients into opening dangerous file ]s which masquerade as harmless files with innocent-looking extensions.
From its inception, Microsoft defined itself as a platform company and understood the importance of attracting third-party programmers. It did so by providing development tools, training, access to proprietary ]s in early versions, and partner programs. Although the resulting ubiquity of Microsoft software allows a user to benefit from ]s, critics and even Microsoft itself decry what they consider to be an "]" strategy of adding proprietary features to open standards or their software implementations, thereby using its market dominance to gain unofficial ownership of standards "extended" in this way.<ref name="ZDExecExtinguish">{{cite news
|url=http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-512681.html
|first=Will
|last=Rodger
|title=Intel exec: MS wanted to 'extend, embrace and extinguish' competition
|publisher=ZDNet
|date=November 8, 1998 |access-date=February 5, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061211025455/http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-512681.html
|archive-date=December 11, 2006 |url-status=dead
}}</ref><ref name="GroklawAlepin">{{cite news|url=http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070108020408557|title=Expert Testimony of Ronald Alepin in Comes v. Microsoft – Embrace, Extend, Extinguish|last=Alepin|first=Ronald|date=January 8, 2007|access-date=May 17, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190517044902/http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070108020408557|archive-date=May 17, 2019|publisher=Groklaw}}</ref><ref name="DobbsExtinguish">{{cite news|url=http://www.drdobbs.com/embrace-extend-extinguish-three-strikes/184404225|title=Embrace, Extend, Extinguish: Three Strikes And You're Out|last=Erickson|first=Jonathan|date=August 1, 2000|access-date=May 17, 2019|publisher=Dr. Dobb's Portal|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131212091852/http://www.drdobbs.com/embrace-extend-extinguish-three-strikes/184404225|archive-date=December 12, 2013|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="IWKerberos">{{cite magazine
|url=http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/05/15/000515oplivingston.html
|first=Brian
|last=Livingston
|title=Is Microsoft's change in Kerberos security a form of 'embrace, extend, extinguish'?
|magazine=InfoWorld
|date=May 15, 2000 |access-date=February 5, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070128094803/http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/05/15/000515oplivingston.html
|archive-date=January 28, 2007 |url-status=dead
}}</ref>


Microsoft software is also presented as a "safe" choice for IT managers purchasing software systems. In an internal memo for senior management Microsoft's head of ] development, Aaron Contorer, stated:<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.cnet.com/2100-1016-5197411.html|title=EU report takes Microsoft to task|access-date=June 6, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110616081801/http://news.cnet.com/2100-1016-5197411.html|archive-date=June 16, 2011|url-status=live}}</ref>
===Stability===


{{cquote|The ] is so broad, so deep, and so functional that most ]s would be crazy not to use it. And it is so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system instead... It is this switching cost that has given the customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO (]), our lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move. In short, without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago.}}
Older versions of Windows, and later the ] kernel, were widely panned for their instability, such as displaying a ], or abruptly terminating applications arbitrarily. During this period, users of the operating system often accused Microsoft of being indifferent of the hardships this imposed on them. {{citation needed}} After the adoption of the ] ] in consumer versions of Windows, the operating system saw a vast improvement in stability, but complaints still arise. Computer users not familiar with the division of responsibilities among applications, the operating system, and third-party device drivers sometimes blame Microsoft for problems that are created by third-party software {{citation needed}}. Others argue that a well-designed operating interface should ] such software in a way that does not permit it to impact on the ] or ].


More recently, Microsoft had their ] specification approved by the ] standards body in a manner consistent with previous attempts to control standards.<ref name="Groklaw">{{cite web|url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958|title=How to Get Your Platform Accepted as a Standard – Microsoft Style|author=Jones|first=Pamela|date=February 17, 2008|publisher=] News|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190513080150/http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958|archive-date=May 13, 2019|url-status=live|access-date=May 17, 2019}}</ref>
===Security===
By 2002, several of Microsoft's networking- and Internet-related products had become the subject of intense criticism following several high-profile ] lapses. Malicious programmers increasingly exploited weaknesses in Microsoft software by creating and distributing ], ], and ]s designed to spread across the Internet and waste computing resources or destroy data. These ] primarily targeted Microsoft's ] and ] e-mail programs, ] (IIS) Web server, and ] ] server software.


{{Anchor|Secure boot}}
In February 2004 some source code of ] was leaked and distributed on filesharing networks. The leak contains source code for network protocols, parts of ], and certificate handling. Some people developed theoretical attacks to show how easily this leaked code could allow current versions of Windows to be compromised, but these flaws are not yet known to have been exploited maliciously.{{citation needed}}
With the release of ], Microsoft began requiring OEM devices to ship with ] system firmware, configured by default to only allow the execution of operating system binaries digitally signed by Microsoft (]). Concerns were raised that this requirement would hinder the use of alternate operating systems such as ]. In a post discussing secure boot on the ''Building Windows 8'' blog, Microsoft developer Tony Mangefeste indicated that vendors would provide means to customize secure boot, stating that "At the end of the day, the customer is in control of their PC. Microsoft's philosophy is to provide customers with the best experience first, and allow them to make decisions themselves."<ref name="building-secureboot">{{cite web |url=http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/09/22/protecting-the-pre-os-environment-with-uefi.aspx |title=Protecting the pre-OS environment with UEFI |first=Tony |last=Mangefeste |date=September 22, 2011 |publisher=Building Windows 8 |access-date=October 17, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120802042640/http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/09/22/protecting-the-pre-os-environment-with-uefi.aspx |archive-date=August 2, 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/248342/windows_8_secure_boot_the_controversy_continues.html |title=Windows 8 Secure Boot: The Controversy Continues |work=PC World |first=Katherine |last=Noyes |date=January 18, 2012 |access-date=August 3, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121005023808/http://www.pcworld.com/article/248342/windows_8_secure_boot_the_controversy_continues.html |archive-date=October 5, 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref> As such, vendors were required to provide means for users to re-configure or disable secure boot (although devices running ], a variation of Windows 8 for ], have locked firmware where this cannot be disabled).<ref name=warren>{{cite web |url=https://www.theverge.com/microsoft/2012/1/16/2710502/microsoft-secure-boot-windows-8-arm |title=Windows 8 ARM devices won't have the option to switch off Secure Boot |first=Tom |last=Warren |work=] |date=January 16, 2012 |access-date=August 3, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120313130127/http://www.theverge.com/microsoft/2012/1/16/2710502/microsoft-secure-boot-windows-8-arm |archive-date=March 13, 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="wired-sb">{{Cite magazine |last=Garling |first=Caleb |url=https://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2011/09/windows-8-secure-boot-sparks-linux-furor-and-a-microsoft-response/ |title=Windows 8 Secure Boot Sparks Linux Furor, and a Microsoft Response |magazine=] |date=September 23, 2011 |access-date=August 3, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120725002533/http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2011/09/windows-8-secure-boot-sparks-linux-furor-and-a-microsoft-response |archive-date=July 25, 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Jon |last=Brodkin |url=https://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/microsoft-mandating-secure-boot-on-arm-making-linux-installs-difficult.ars |title=Microsoft mandating Secure Boot on ARM, making Linux installs difficult |work=] |date=January 16, 2012 |access-date=August 3, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120409040152/http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/microsoft-mandating-secure-boot-on-arm-making-linux-installs-difficult.ars |archive-date=April 9, 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref> No mandate is made regarding the installation of third-party certificates that would enable running alternative programs.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/is-microsoft-blocking-linux-booting-on-arm-hardware-3569162/|title=Is Microsoft Blocking Linux Booting on ARM Hardware?|first=Glyn|last=Moody|date=January 12, 2012|work=]|access-date=May 28, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160405170058/http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/is-microsoft-blocking-linux-booting-on-arm-hardware-3569162/|archive-date=April 5, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://blogs.computerworld.com/19577/why_microsoft_should_lift_the_possible_ban_on_linux_booting_on_windows_arm_devices |title=Why Microsoft should lift the possible ban on Linux booting on Windows 8 ARM devices |work=] |date=January 13, 2012 |access-date=January 27, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120518223506/http://blogs.computerworld.com/19577/why_microsoft_should_lift_the_possible_ban_on_linux_booting_on_windows_arm_devices |archive-date=May 18, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=James |last=Niccolai |url=http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9223446/Windows_8_on_ARM_You_can_look_but_you_can_t_touch |title=Windows 8 on ARM: You can look but you can't touch |work=] |date=January 13, 2012 |access-date=January 27, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120131130956/http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9223446/Windows_8_on_ARM_You_can_look_but_you_can_t_touch |archive-date=January 31, 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref>


== Copyright enforcement ==
] via an ] Control.]]
When Microsoft discovered that its first product, ], was subject to widespread ], Microsoft founder ] wrote an ] that openly accused many hobbyists of stealing software. Gates' letter provoked many responses, with some hobbyists objecting to the broad accusation, and others supporting the principle of compensation.<ref>{{cite journal|first=Bill |last=Gates |date=April 1976 |title=A Second and Final Letter |journal=Computer Notes |url=http://startup.nmnaturalhistory.org/gallery/computernotes.php |access-date=March 23, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120323162008/http://startup.nmnaturalhistory.org/gallery/computernotes.php |archive-date=March 23, 2012 }}</ref>
Microsoft contends that its security record on critical vulnerabilities has substantially improved and compares favorably to that of its competitors, and that its dominant position in several Internet-related software categories naturally subjects the company's products to more attacks. The company also recently started the "]" initiative to help with its fight against security issues. However, critics argue that the attacks also target Microsoft products that do not hold commanding market shares, {{citation needed}} <!-- more weasel terms --> and suggest that this is because Microsoft products in general are fundamentally less secure than those of the company's competitors. This problem is compounded by the very ubiquity of Microsoft software. Once a working virus is released, it is almost certain to spread very widely because almost every computer it comes across is able to replicate and spread the virus. This effect has recently been dubbed the "Microsoft ]", by analogy to the problems associated with lack of ] in an ecosystem. The National Science Foundation on ] ] announced it had granted US$750,000 (Lemos, 2003) to computer scientists at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of New Mexico to further understand the causes and the (presumably) negative effects of the homogenization of the world's computing platforms (National Science Foundation, 2003).
This disagreement over whether software should be proprietary continues into the present day under the banner of the ] movement, with Microsoft characterizing free software released under the terms of the GPL as being "potentially viral"<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/25/open_source_terror_stalks_microsofts/|title=Open source terror stalks Microsoft's lawyers|website=]|access-date=August 10, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121003115133/http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/25/open_source_terror_stalks_microsofts/|archive-date=October 3, 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> and the ] itself as a "]" which "infects" proprietary software and forces its developer to have to release proprietary source to the public.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.linuxinsider.com/story/34292.html|title=The EULA, the GPL and the Wisdom of Fortune Cookies|last=Albert|first=Phil|date=June 8, 2004|website=LinuxInsider|access-date=May 17, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190517062926/https://www.linuxinsider.com/story/34292.html|archive-date=May 17, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>


The ], internal Microsoft memos which were leaked to the open source community beginning in 1998, indicate that some Microsoft employees perceive ] — in particular, ] — as a growing long-term threat to Microsoft's position in the software industry. The Halloween documents acknowledged that parts of Linux are superior to the versions of Microsoft Windows available at the time, and outlined a strategy of "de-commoditize protocols & applications."<ref name="ZDExecExtinguish"/><ref name="GroklawAlepin"/><ref name="DobbsExtinguish"/><ref name="IWKerberos"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/|title=Halloween Document 8|last=Raymond|first=Eric S.|website=catb.org|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171006165712/http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/|archive-date=October 6, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref>
Some accuse Microsoft's licensing policy of aiding the spread of viruses because the first ] for Windows XP checked for known pirate keys and refused to patch Windows XP installations which had been pirated, despite the fact that many users of pirated versions of Windows XP were unaware of the fact that their operating system was indeed pirated. It resulted in a large number of Windows XP systems that were left more vulnerable to exploits. To combat this, Microsoft briefly considered letting Windows XP Service Pack 2 be installable on pirated copies of Windows XP, but later decided against this as it would not discourage further piracy.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.betanews.com/article/1084264398|title=Microsoft: SP2 Will Not Install on Pirated Copies of XP}}</ref>
Microsoft stated in its 2006 Annual Report that it was a defendant in at least 35 patent infringement lawsuits.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.microsoft.com/msft/reports/ar06/staticversion/10k_fr_not_16.html|title=MSFT Annual Report 2006|website=]|access-date=January 30, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090214100642/http://www.microsoft.com/msft/reports/ar06/staticversion/10k_fr_not_16.html|archive-date=February 14, 2009|url-status=dead}}</ref> The company's litigation expenses for April 2004 through March 2007 exceed $4.3&nbsp;billion: over $4 billion in payouts, plus $300 million in legal fees.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/patent-tax.html|title=Windows vs. Linux: The Patent Tax|date=April 16, 2007|access-date=May 17, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190715173101/http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/patent-tax.html|archive-date=July 15, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>


Another concern of critics is that Microsoft may be using the distribution of ] to harvest names of developers who have been exposed to Microsoft code, as some believe that these developers could someday be the target of lawsuits if they were ever to participate in the development of competing products. This issue is addressed in published papers from several organizations including the ] and the ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/spring2004/course_materials/02_webbink.pdf|title=Open Source Software – A Legal Framework|access-date=June 23, 2009|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090316131744/http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/spring2004/course_materials/02_webbink.pdf|archive-date=March 16, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/shared_source.php|title=Shared Source: A Dangerous Virus|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060924134603/http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/shared_source.php|archive-date=September 24, 2006}}</ref>
===Vendor lock-in===
From its very inception, Microsoft defined itself as a platform company and understood the importance of attracting third-party programmers. It did so by providing development tools, training, access to proprietary ]s in early versions, and partner programs. The solutions and plugins built by third-party programmers in turn led to more Microsoft sales. Although the resulting ubiquity of Microsoft software allows a user to benefit from ]s, critics decry what they consider to be a "]" strategy by Microsoft of adding proprietary features to open standards, thereby using its market dominance to gain ''de facto'' ownership of standards "extended" in this way. For example, the large installation base of ] makes Word files the de-facto standard word-processor format. In addition, more potential employees have training in Microsoft Office than on competing products. Hence using Office can result in reduced training requirements, especially in the case of temporary employment. However, the file formats of Word and other programs were not an open standard, and even the introduction of ]-based format of the program is sometimes criticized as not being open as ]'s ] format.


Starting in the 1990s, Microsoft was accused of maintaining "hidden" or "secret" APIs: interfaces to its operating system software that it deliberately keeps undocumented to gain a competitive advantage in its application software products.<ref>{{cite journal
Microsoft software also represents a "safe" choice for IT managers purchasing software systems, in that the ubiquity of Microsoft software allows them to claim that they are following accepted best practices. This is a particularly attractive option for IT managers with limited technical knowledge. In an internal memo for senior management Microsoft's head of C++ development, Aaron Contorer, stated:
|author=Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union
|date=January 25, 2005 |title=Competitive Processes, Anticompetitive Practices and Consumer Harm in the Software Industry
|url=http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/CFA_tunney_comments_20020125.pdf
|access-date=April 13, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080625000937/http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/CFA_tunney_comments_20020125.pdf
|archive-date=June 25, 2008 |url-status=dead
}} (public comment on ''US v. Microsoft'' under the ])</ref>
Microsoft employees have consistently denied this;<ref>{{cite book
|last = Henderson
|first = Ken
|year = 2003
|title = The Guru's Guide to SQL Server Architecture and Internals
|publisher = Addison-Wesley
|url = http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa175393(SQL.80).asp
|archive-url = http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20100505194205/http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa175393(SQL.80).asp
|url-status = dead
|archive-date = May 5, 2010
|access-date = November 21, 2006
|isbn = 0-201-70047-6
|quote = Contrary to what some people believed at the time, SQL Server 6.5 made no use of hidden APIs to reach the scalability levels it achieved.
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|last=Pratley
|first=Chris
|date=April 28, 2004
|title=Word Myths and Feedback
|work=Chris Pratley's OneNote Blog
|url=http://blogs.msdn.com/chris_pratley/archive/2004/04/28/122004.aspx
|access-date=November 21, 2006
|quote=I also detected another old saw about hidden advantages or undocumented APIs that somehow made Word better than competing apps. The reality on this is so counter to the conspiracy it is astounding. The Office team barely talks to the Windows team.
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061217201721/http://blogs.msdn.com/Chris_Pratley/archive/2004/04/28/122004.aspx
|archive-date=December 17, 2006
|url-status=live
}}</ref>
they claim that application developers inside and outside Microsoft routinely reverse-engineered DOS and 16-bit versions of Windows without any inside help, creating legacy support problems that far exceeded any alleged benefit to Microsoft.<ref name="bozoslivehere">{{cite web|first=Raymond|last=Chen|title=What about BOZOSLIVEHERE and TABTHETEXTOUTFORWIMPS?|work=The Old New Thing|url=https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20031015-00/?p=42163|access-date=September 18, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100316193530/http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2003/10/15/55296.aspx|archive-date=March 16, 2010|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|first=Joel|last=Spolsky|title=How Microsoft Lost the API War|date=June 13, 2004|url=http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html|access-date=June 1, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090426050037/http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html|archive-date=April 26, 2009|url-status=live}}</ref>
In response to court orders, Microsoft has published interfaces between components of its operating system software, including components like ], ], and ] that sell as part of Windows but compete with application software.


On October 10, 2018, Microsoft joined the ] community despite holding more than 60,000 patents.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/10/microsoft_open_invention_network/|title=Microsoft has signed up to the Open Invention Network. We repeat. Microsoft has signed up to the OIN|last=Speed|first=Richard|date=October 10, 2018|website=]|access-date=May 17, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181011123124/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/10/microsoft_open_invention_network/|archive-date=October 11, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>
<blockquote>The Windows API is so broad, so deep, and so functional that most ] would be crazy not to use it. And it is so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system instead... It is this switching cost that has given the customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO , our lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move. In short, without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.com.com/2100-1016-5197411.html|title=EU report takes Microsoft to task|accessdate=2006-06-06}}</ref></blockquote>


== Mono patent concerns ==
]s and ]s have been criticised as a form of ] since they only work in ] . Creating ]s for Winmodems and Winprinters to work on other operating systems is very difficult and requires ].
{{Further|Software patents and free software}}
On July 6, 2009, Microsoft announced that it was placing their ECMA 334 and ECMA 335 specifications under their ] pledging that they would not assert their patents against anyone implementing, distributing, or using alternative implementations of .NET.<ref name="Port25CommunityPromise">{{cite web|title=The ECMA C# and CLI Standards|url=http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx|date=July 6, 2009|publisher=Port 25|quote="''Under the Community Promise, Microsoft provides assurance that it will not assert its Necessary Claims against anyone who makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, or distributes any Covered Implementation under any type of development or distribution model, including open-source licensing models such as the LGPL or GPL.''"|access-date=July 7, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130523083117/http://blogs.technet.com/b/port25/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx|archive-date=May 23, 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref> Mono's implementation of those components of the .NET stack not submitted to the ] for standardization has been the source of patent violation concerns for much of the life of the project.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.zdnetasia.com/will-open-source-get-snagged-in-net-30102692.htm|title=Will open source get snagged in .Net?|last=Babcock|first=Charles|publisher=ZDNet Asia|date=August 7, 2001}}</ref> In particular, discussion has taken place about whether Microsoft could destroy the Mono project through patent suits.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono|title=Microsoft's Empty Promise|last=Smith|first=Brett|publisher=fsf.org|date=July 16, 2009}}</ref>


The base technologies submitted to the ECMA, and therefore also the Unix/GNOME-specific parts, are claimed to be safe due to Microsoft's explicitly placing both ECMA 334 (]) and ECMA 335 (]) standards under the ]. The concerns primarily relate to technologies developed by Microsoft on top of the .NET Framework, such as ], ] and ] (see ]), i.e. parts composing Mono's Windows compatibility stack. These technologies are today{{When|date=June 2012}} not fully implemented in Mono and not required for developing Mono-applications, they are simply there for developers and users who need full compatibility with the Windows system.
==Business practices==
===Intellectual property===
One of the earliest criticisms of Microsoft stemmed from its decision to market its software independently of the hardware it ran on by asserting ] to the software and licensing it under terms similar to music. ] was a legal novelty at the time, and controversial. When Microsoft discovered that its first product, ], was subject to widespread ], Microsoft founder ] wrote an ] urging them not to use software without paying for it. Some computer hobbyists who received the letter believed it was a betrayal of the ] that was essential to the growth of the hobby. This disagreement over whether software should be proprietary continues into the present day under the banner of the ] movement, with Microsoft recently characterizing open-source software as being "potentially viral"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/25/open_source_terror_stalks_microsofts/|title=Open source terror stalks Microsoft's lawyers}}</ref> and the ] itself as a "viral license" which "infects" proprietary software and forces its developer to have to release proprietary source to the public.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/34292.html|title=The EULA, the GPL and the Wisdom of Fortune Cookies}}</ref>


In June 2009 the Ubuntu Technical Board stated that it saw "no reason to exclude Mono or applications based upon it from the archive, or from the default installation set."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2009-June/000584.html |title=Mono Position Statement |date=June 30, 2009 |quote=''It is common practice in the software industry to register patents as protection against litigation, rather than as an intent to litigate. Thus mere existence of a patent, without a claim of infringement, is not sufficient reason to warrant exclusion from the Ubuntu Project.'' |publisher=]}}</ref>
The ], internal Microsoft memos which were leaked to the ] community beginning in 1998, indicate that Microsoft perceives ] — in particular, freely-available ]-based ] — as a growing long-term threat to Microsoft's dominance of the software industry. In marked contrast to the company's public statements, which tend to downplay or ignore open source software, the Halloween documents acknowledged that parts of Linux are superior to the versions of Microsoft Windows available at the time, and outlined a strategy of "de-commoditize protocols & applications"; in other words, basing networks and documents around proprietary standards so that they can only interoperate with other computers which use Microsoft products. Opponents of Microsoft have dubbed this strategy "]".


The ]'s Richard Stallman has stated on June 2, 2009, that " we should discourage people from writing programs in C#. Therefore, we should not include C# implementations in the default installation of GNU/Linux distributions or in their principal ways of installing GNOME".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono|title=Why free software shouldn't depend on Mono or C#}}</ref> On July 1, 2009, Brett Smith (also from the FSF) stated that "Microsoft's patents are much more dangerous: it's the only major software company that has declared itself the enemy of GNU/Linux and stated its intention to attack our community with patents.", "C# represents a unique threat to us" and "The Community Promise does nothing to change any of this".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono|title=Microsoft's Empty Promise}}</ref>
Another concern of critics is that Microsoft may be using the distribution of ] to harvest names of developers who have been exposed to Microsoft code, as some believe that these developers could someday be the target of lawsuits if they were ever to participate in the development of competing products. This issue is addressed in published papers from several organizations including the ] and the ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/spring2004/course_materials/02_webbink.pdf|title=Open Source Software - A Legal Framework (] format)}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/shared_source.php|title=Shared Source: A Dangerous Virus}}</ref>


] Project Leader Paul Frields has stated, "We do have some serious concerns about Mono and we'll continue to look at it with our legal counsel to see what if any steps are needed on our part", yet "We haven't come to a legal conclusion that is pat enough for us to make the decision to take mono out".<ref>{{cite web| title=Fedora is concerned about Mono| url=http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/06/fedora-is-concerned-about-mono.html| publisher=internetnews.com| date=June 12, 2009| quote=''We haven't come to a legal conclusion that is pat enough for us to make the decision to take mono out''| access-date=July 4, 2010| archive-date=June 19, 2009| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090619181811/http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/06/fedora-is-concerned-about-mono.html| url-status=dead}}</ref>
Starting in the 1990s, Microsoft was accused of maintaining "hidden" or "secret" APIs: interfaces to its operating system software that it deliberately keeps undocumented to gain a competitive advantage in its application software products. Although Micrsosoft has published interfaces between components of its operating system software, as required by court orders, it has consistently denied the use of secret APIs in its application software products.


In November 2011 at an ], developers voted to have the Mono-based ] media player removed from Ubuntu's default installation beginning on ]; although reported reasonings included performance issues on ], blocking issues on its GTK+ 3 version, and it being, in their opinion, "not well maintained", speculation also surfaced that the decision was also influenced by a desire to remove Mono from the base distribution, as the remaining programs dependent on Mono, ] and ], were also to be removed. Mono developer Joseph Michael Shields defended the performance of Banshee on ARM, and also the claims that Banshee was not well-maintained as being a "directed personal insult" to one of its major contributors.<ref name=itworld-bansheegeddon>{{cite web|title='Bansheegeddon' may see Banshee, Mono dropped from Ubuntu default|url=http://www.itworld.com/article/2734148/it-management/-bansheegeddon--may-see-banshee--mono-dropped-from-ubuntu-default.html|website=ITWorld|access-date=August 31, 2015|archive-date=July 10, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150710205702/http://www.itworld.com/article/2734148/it-management/-bansheegeddon--may-see-banshee--mono-dropped-from-ubuntu-default.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>
===Licensing agreements===
A common complaint comes from those who want to purchase a computer without a copy of Windows preinstalled because they intend to use a free operating system such as ], ], or ] instead. With the exception of ], all large computer vendors in the ], and most in other countries, bundle Microsoft Windows with their personal computers. The Findings of Fact in the ] case established that "One of the ways Microsoft combats piracy is by advising OEMs that they will be charged a higher price for Windows unless they drastically limit the number of PCs that they sell without an operating system pre-installed. In 1998, all major OEMs agreed to this restriction."


== Ignoring unauthorized copying ==
The 2002 settlement in the United States v. Microsoft case prohibits Microsoft from giving special prices to select vendors, which resulted in the price list becoming public and based on volume sold with discounts for features from the distributor. These features can include the provisioning of components as specified by Microsoft, such as ], or the placement of Microsoft logos on the computer as a sticker. Market development funds such as these are a source of controversy with both Microsoft and ], as while they can be used to cover the cost of adding new features to the system they can also bias PC OEMs towards Microsoft/Intel products. In particular, the co-funding that Intel and Microsoft provide for PC advertising make it cheaper to advertise a Microsoft/Intel PC than a Linux/] system.


Microsoft ignored unauthorized copying of its own software for their benefit on the long term. While talking about users in China who do not pay for the software they use in 2006, to an audience at the University of Washington, Bill Gates said "And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-apr-09-fi-micropiracy9-story.html|title=How Piracy Opens Doors for Windows? |work=Los Angeles Times|date=April 9, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190804203347/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-apr-09-fi-micropiracy9-story.html |archive-date=August 4, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>
This problem can be avoided by purchasing a computer without Windows or by buying a ] machine. Some vendors, such as IBM and HP, have recently started to sell certain models bundled with Linux, although these are primarily high-end ]s or ] systems. Often, servers are sold without any operating system at all. In various countries, high-street retail chains (such as ]) have also been known to offer machines bundled with Linux. This can greatly reduce the cost of purchasing a computer; for example, in the UK the ] chain of electrical stores in summer 2006 started selling a base unit bundled with ] for around £150 (about $280 US$), much cheaper than most other new base units. In some cases the user can return Windows for a refund by refusing to agree to the Microsoft ] that Microsoft requires its users to accept before allowing the use of several products. The EULA specifically mentions that if you do not agree to the license you can return the product for a full refund. Some vendors, such as ], have a shrinkwrap sales contract that specifically voids this clause of the EULA.


The practice allowed Microsoft to gain some dominance over the Chinese market and only then taking measures against unauthorized copies. In 2008, by means of the Windows update mechanism, a verification program called "]" (WGA) was downloaded and installed.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.france24.com/en/20081028-chinese-netizens-slam-microsofts-anti-piracy-policy-software|title=Chinese netizens slam Microsoft's anti-piracy policy |publisher=France 24|date=October 28, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200701080323/https://www.france24.com/en/20081028-chinese-netizens-slam-microsofts-anti-piracy-policy-software |archive-date=July 1, 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> When WGA detects that the copy of Windows is not genuine, it periodically turns the user's screen black. This behavior angered users and generated complaints in China with a lawyer stating that "Microsoft uses its monopoly to bundle its updates with the validation programs and forces its users to verify the genuineness of their software".<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2008-10/28/content_7150746.htm|title=Microsoft not playing fair|work=China Daily|date=October 28, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200215041114/http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2008-10/28/content_7150746.htm |archive-date=February 15, 2020|url-status=live}}</ref>
===Acquisitions===
Microsoft has ] several companies (such as competitors), and thereby their products, during its history.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.microsoft.com/msft/acquisitions/history.mspx|title=Microsoft's list of companies it has acquired}}</ref> Such acquired assets include ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. Microsoft rebrands the primary products of the companies it acquires with some claiming that Microsoft is misrepresenting these products as its own creations. Former ] chief executive ] often claimed that Microsoft never produced technology except by buying it, as in one instance when he stated "Name one thing they've ever invented on their own? Seriously, name one! If you think of any, send me an e-mail, and I'll research it to find out who they bought it from.... R&D and M&A are the same thing over there."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_47/b3758010.htm|title=Q&A with Scott McNealy}}</ref>


== Licensing agreements ==
An often criticized acquisition took place in 1995 when Microsoft announced its intent to conduct a ] of ], the maker of ], which competed with its own product ]. After a campaign by attorney Gary Reback and complaints to the ], Microsoft eventually dropped the takeover plans.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessweek.com/1997/34/b354166.htm|title=Businessweek article on the Intuit case}}</ref>
{{Main|Bundling of Microsoft Windows}}


A common complaint<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/products/nowindows.htm |title=Buying without Windows-Don't want Windows? |publisher=Best Price Computers Ltd |date=February 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120318161202/http://www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/products/nowindows.htm |archive-date=March 18, 2012 }}</ref> comes from those who want to purchase a computer that usually comes preinstalled with Windows ''without'' a copy of Windows pre-installed and without paying extra for the license either so that another operating system can be used or because a license was already acquired elsewhere, such as through the ] program.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.racketware.info/msdnaa/call-on-students|title=Call on students|date=September 27, 2009|access-date=December 30, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110722001347/http://racketware.info/msdnaa/call-on-students|archive-date=July 22, 2011|url-status=live}}</ref> Microsoft encourages ]s (OEMs) to supply computers with Windows pre-installed<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/11/28/ms_its_nearly_illegal/|title=MS: it's (nearly) illegal to buy PCs without Windows|website=]|date=November 28, 2000|access-date=August 10, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170810091954/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/11/28/ms_its_nearly_illegal/|archive-date=August 10, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> by presenting their dominance in computer sales<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110 |title=Microsoft's Dirty OEM-Secret |date=October 23, 2001 |access-date=January 4, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090713194826/http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110 |archive-date=July 13, 2009 |url-status=live }}</ref> and arguing that consumers benefit by not having to install an operating system.<ref name="protalinski" /> Because the price of the license varies depending on discounts given to the OEM and because there is no similar computer that the OEM offers without Windows, there is no immediate way to find the size of the refund. In 2009, Microsoft stated that it has always charged OEMs about $50 for a Windows license on a $1,000 computer.<ref name=protalinski-b>{{cite web|last=Protalinski|first=Emil|title=OEMs pay Microsoft about $50 for each copy of Windows|url=https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/09/microsoft-oems-pay-about-50-for-each-copy-of-windows/|work=Ars Technica|access-date=December 28, 2012|date=September 16, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121202155234/http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/09/microsoft-oems-pay-about-50-for-each-copy-of-windows/|archive-date=December 2, 2012|url-status=live}}</ref>
===Market power===
There is little argument that in most mass-market desktop software application markets, Microsoft is a dominant player. However, this dominance has attracted widespread resentment, which is not necessarily restricted to the company's competitors. In a 2003 , ] argued the prevalence of Microsoft products has resulted in a ] which is dangerously easy for viruses to exploit. However, numerous defences have been waged against this argument, including the idea that if machines can be patched from the threats it has much less of an effect.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mcpmag.com/columns/article.asp?EditorialsID=610|title=Does Windows Endanger Society?}}</ref>


While it is possible to obtain a computer with no or free operating systems,<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://marc.merlins.org/linux/refundday/dear-valued-customer.html | title=Microsoft official "valued customer" statement | access-date=December 30, 2012 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120723210051/http://marc.merlins.org/linux/refundday/dear-valued-customer.html | archive-date=July 23, 2012 | url-status=live }}</ref> virtually all large computer vendors continue to ] Microsoft Windows with the majority of the personal computers in their ranges. The claimed increase in the price of a computer resulting from the inclusion of a Windows license has been called the "Windows tax" or "Microsoft tax" by opposing computer users.<ref name="reimer">{{Cite web |url=https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070525-windows-tax-is-50-according-to-dell-linux-pc-pricing.html |title=Dell goes Ubuntu; "Windows tax" is $50 according to pricing |author=Jeremy Reimer |date=May 25, 2007 |access-date=June 14, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090122063508/http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070525-windows-tax-is-50-according-to-dell-linux-pc-pricing.html |archive-date=January 22, 2009 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/159/1017159/cost-of-windows-tax-calculated |title=Cost of Windows tax calculated |author=Charlie Demerjian |date=March 3, 2007 |url-status=unfit |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090109213315/http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/159/1017159/cost-of-windows-tax-calculated |archive-date=January 9, 2009 }}</ref> The Findings of Fact in the ] established that "One of the ways Microsoft combats piracy is by advising OEMs that they will be charged a higher price for Windows unless they drastically limit the number of PCs that they sell without an operating system pre-installed. In 1998, all major OEMs agreed to this restriction."<ref name="fof">{{Cite web | url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#iiie | title=U.S. v. Microsoft: Court's Findings of Fact | access-date=December 30, 2012 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110811180655/http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#iiie | archive-date=August 11, 2011 | url-status=live }}</ref> Microsoft also once assessed license fees based on the number of computers an OEM sold, regardless of whether a Windows license was included; Microsoft was forced to end this practice due to a consent decree.<ref name="reimer" /> In 2010, Microsoft stated that its agreements with OEMs to distribute Windows are nonexclusive, and OEMs are free to distribute computers with a different operating system or without any operating system.<ref name=protalinski>{{cite web|last=Protalinski|first=Emil|title=Italian class-action suit targets unwanted Windows installs|url=https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/01/italian-class-action-suit-targets-unwanted-windows-installs/|work=Ars Technica|access-date=December 28, 2012|date=January 7, 2010|quote='However, consumers benefit from the preinstallation of Windows on PCs. It provides the best user experience from the time a consumer first turns on the PC and saves consumers the substantial effort and resources associated with having to install an operating system that functions properly' ... 'Computer manufacturers are free to sell PCs pre-installed with another operating system or no operating system at all,' the spokesperson continued. 'It's also important to note that Microsoft's agreements with OEMs are nonexclusive.'|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121202221921/http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/01/italian-class-action-suit-targets-unwanted-windows-installs/|archive-date=December 2, 2012|url-status=live}}</ref>
Critics of Microsoft have accused it of using its dominance in desktop operating system to leverage market share in other sectors of the computer market, such as web browsers (Internet Explorer), server operating systems (Windows NT), office software suites (Microsoft Office), and streaming media (Windows Media). They blame this on Microsoft's tactics of tying software so that a new product can ride on the success of a monopoly product. For example, by including Microsoft Messenger and Windows Media Player with every copy of Windows, they claim that Windows users have less need to download and use competing products such as AOL Instant Messenger or RealPlayer, and thus will stick with the Microsoft alternatives even if the competing products are superior. Critics see this as a clear case of a monopoly based on ], which tends to starve the rival companies while giving Microsoft time to adopt their features. Microsoft defends its behavior by stating that it is giving its customers more software for free, and that it is doing the best it can to innovate and compete in a capitalist market.


Microsoft does not provide refunds for Windows licenses sold through an OEM, including licenses that come with the purchase of a computer or are pre-installed on a computer.<ref name=product-refund-guidelines>{{cite web|title=Microsoft North American Retail Product Refund Guidelines|url=https://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/productrefund/refund.mspx|publisher=Microsoft|access-date=August 27, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120906134927/http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/productrefund/refund.mspx|archive-date=September 6, 2012|url-status=dead}}</ref>
Many companies have sued Microsoft over allegations of stolen intellectual property and anticompetitive business practices, and some of these cases have been decided against Microsoft. However, the cases often drag on for years due to appeals and delays initiated by Microsoft, so that by the time a verdict is delivered, the case has long since become irrelevant and the targeted company is no longer a viable competitor. Some argue that these cases as well as the resulting restrictions which have been placed on the company's behavior are in fact an intentional business tactic of the company. {{cn}}


According to Microsoft's ] for Windows 7 the ability to receive a refund for the operating system is determined by the hardware manufacturer:<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://download.microsoft.com/Documents/UseTerms/Windows%207_Professional_English_b7a7153f-1a6c-498c-9350-c86926bb1aa9.pdf |title=Microsoft Software License Terms: Windows 7 Professional |access-date=December 30, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120311072450/http://download.microsoft.com/Documents/UseTerms/Windows%207_Professional_English_b7a7153f-1a6c-498c-9350-c86926bb1aa9.pdf |archive-date=March 11, 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref>{{blockquote|By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, contact the manufacturer or installer to determine its return policy. You must comply with that policy, which might limit your rights or require you to return the entire system on which the software is installed. |author=Microsoft Software License Terms: Windows 7 Professional}} ] has a policy of requiring the customer to return items at their own expense, and the balance received by the customer can be as low as €30.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/465/1020465/man-wins-damages-from-acer-over-voleware-refund |title=Man wins damages from Acer over Voleware refund |date=September 22, 2007 |url-status=unfit |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090406172423/http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/465/1020465/man-wins-damages-from-acer-over-voleware-refund |archive-date=April 6, 2009 }}</ref> In other cases, vendors have asked that customers requesting refunds sign ]s.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://osor.eu/news/cz-lenovo-fails-to-silence-gnu-linux-user-on-windows-refund |title=CZ: Lenovo fails to silence GNU/Linux user on Windows refund |author=Gijs Hillenius |date=October 1, 2008 |access-date=December 30, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110720172317/http://www.osor.eu/news/cz-lenovo-fails-to-silence-gnu-linux-user-on-windows-refund |archive-date=July 20, 2011 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=ynetnews>{{Cite news |url=http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3632861,00.html |title=Dell customer awarded Windows refund |author=Niv Lillian |newspaper=Ynetnews |date=December 3, 2008 |access-date=December 30, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121016200159/http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3632861,00.html |archive-date=October 16, 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref>
====Government anti-trust suits====
In the 1990s, Microsoft adopted exclusionary licensing under which PC manufacturers were required to pay for an MS-DOS license even when the system shipped with an alternative operating system. Critics allege that it also used predatory tactics to price its competitors out of the market and that Microsoft erected technical barriers to make it appear that competing products did not work on its operating system.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/microsoft/stories/1993/launch082193.htm|title=Justice to Launch Probe of Microsoft}}</ref> An investigation by the ] on ], ] resulted in an opinion stating that this behavior was illegal; in a consent decree issued on ], ], Microsoft agreed to a deal in which, among other things, that the company would not "tie" other Microsoft products into its operating system.


Older versions of Microsoft Windows had different license terms with respect to the availability of a refund for Windows:<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://download.microsoft.com/Documents/UseTerms/Windows%20Vista_Home%20Premium_English_b6fbe7e6-f312-4692-8aee-f5b3d60987b4.pdf |title=Microsoft software license terms for Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium and Ultimate versions |access-date=December 30, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120215074733/http://download.microsoft.com/Documents/UseTerms/Windows%20Vista_Home%20Premium_English_b6fbe7e6-f312-4692-8aee-f5b3d60987b4.pdf |archive-date=February 15, 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref> {{blockquote|By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, contact the manufacturer or installer to determine their return policy for a refund or credit. |author=Microsoft software license terms for Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium and Ultimate versions}} Based on the updated language, vendors refused to issue partial refunds for Windows licenses, requiring that the computer be returned altogether. In some countries, this practice has been ruled a violation of ] law.<ref name="cour_de_cassation1">{{Cite web |url=http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechExpJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000023113674&fastReqId=2008533966&fastPos=1 |title=Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre civile 1, 15 novembre 2010, 09–11.161, Publié au bulletin |date=November 15, 2010 |access-date=December 30, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121004135458/http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechExpJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000023113674&fastReqId=2008533966&fastPos=1 |archive-date=October 4, 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:149:0022:0039:EN:PDF |title=DIRECTIVE 2005/29/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL |date=May 11, 2005 |access-date=December 30, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121224204324/http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:149:0022:0039:EN:PDF |archive-date=December 24, 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref>
After bundling the Internet Explorer web browser into its Windows operating system in the late 1990s and acquiring a dominant share in the web browser market, an ] was brought against Microsoft. In a series of rulings by judge ], the company was found to have violated its earlier consent decree and abused its monopoly in the desktop operating systems market. The "findings of fact" during the antitrust case established that Microsoft has a ] in the PC desktop operating systems market:


Additionally, the ] for ] was criticized for being too restrictive.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/420|title=Surprises Inside Microsoft Vista's EULA|last=Granneman|first=Scott|date=October 27, 2006|publisher=]|access-date=May 17, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190517062926/https://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/420|archive-date=May 17, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>
<blockquote>Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.|(III.34)<ref name="findingsoffact">{{cite web|url=http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm|title=U.S. vs. Microsoft findings of fact}}</ref></blockquote>


== Litigation ==
The findings of fact goes on to explain the nature of the "barrier to entry":
{{Main|Microsoft litigation}}


Microsoft's market dominance and business practices have attracted widespread resentment, which is not necessarily restricted to the company's competitors. In a 2003 publication, ] argued the prevalence of Microsoft products has resulted in a ] which is dangerously easy for viruses to exploit.<ref name=Cyberinsecurity>{{cite web|title=Cyberinsecurity: The Cost of Monopoly|url=http://www.ccianet.org/papers/cyberinsecurity.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090325175356/http://www.ccianet.org/papers/cyberinsecurity.pdf|archive-date=March 25, 2009|date=September 24, 2003}}</ref>
<blockquote>The fact that there is a multitude of people using Windows makes the product more attractive to consumers. The large installed base… impels ISVs (independent software vendors) to write applications first and foremost to Windows, thereby ensuring a large body of applications from which consumers can choose. The large body of applications thus reinforces demand for Windows, augmenting Microsoft's dominant position and thereby perpetuating ISV incentives to write applications principally for Windows… The small or non-existent market share of an aspiring competitor makes it prohibitively expensive for the aspirant to develop its PC operating system into an acceptable substitute for Windows.|(III.39&ndash;40)<ref name="findingsoffact" /></blockquote>


On June 25, 2024, the ] accused Microsoft of violating the ] by bundling ] with ] and ].<ref>{{cite news| last= Keenan| first= Alexis| date= June 25, 2024| title= EU keeps flexing its antitrust muscles with US tech giants| url= https://finance.yahoo.com/news/eu-keeps-flexing-its-antitrust-muscles-with-us-tech-giants-165948221.html| work= yahoo!Finance| access-date= June 25, 2024}}</ref>
The proposed remedy (dividing Microsoft into two companies) was overturned on appeal, and Microsoft has since reached a settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and some of the states which brought suit against it. Some speculate that this was due to the new administration that took place when ] was elected president. Several class-action lawsuits filed after the conviction are still pending.


== Labor practices ==
In early 2002, Microsoft proposed to settle the private lawsuits by donating $1 billion ] in money, software, services, and training, including Windows licenses and refurbished PCs, to about 12,500 underprivileged public schools. This was seen by some as a potential windfall for Microsoft, not only in educating schoolchildren on Microsoft solutions but also in collecting additional license fees if the schools ever wanted to upgrade. After protests from ], which feared further loss of its educational market share, a federal judge rejected the proposed settlement.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.com.com/2100-1001-808241.html|title=Judge tosses Microsoft schools settlement}}</ref>
] in ]]]


Microsoft has been criticized for the use of ] employees (employees employed for years as "temporary," and therefore without medical benefits), use of ] tactics, where departing employees would be sued to prevent departure, as well as more traditional cost-saving measures, ranging from cutting medical benefits to not providing towels in company locker rooms.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_39/b3952001.htm|title=Troubling Exits At Microsoft|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070502084953/http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_39/b3952001.htm|archive-date=May 2, 2007}}</ref>
In 2003&ndash;2004, the ] investigated the bundling of Windows Media Player into Windows, a practice which rivals complained was destroying the market for their own products. Negotiations between Microsoft and the Commission broke down in March 2004, and the company was subsequently handed down a record fine of €497 million ($613 million) for its breaches of ] competition law. Separate investigations into alleged abuses of the server market were also ongoing at the same time. On ], ], the European Court decided that the measures imposed on Microsoft by the European Commission would not be delayed, as was requested by Microsoft while waiting for the appeal. Microsoft has since paid a €497 million fine, shipped versions of Windows without ], and licensed many of the protocols used in its products to developers in countries within the European Economic Area.


Historically, Microsoft has also been accused of overworking employees, in many cases, leading to ] within just a few years of joining the company. The company is often referred to as a "Velvet Sweatshop", a term which originated in a 1989 '']'' article,<ref>{{cite news | last=Andrews | first=Paul | title=A 'Velvet Sweatshop' or a High-Tech Heaven? | date=April 23, 1989 | newspaper=The Seattle Times | url=http://www.krsaborio.net/research/1980s/89/890423.htm | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://archive.today/20120629191556/http://www.krsaborio.net/research/1980s/89/890423.htm | archive-date=June 29, 2012 }}</ref> and later became used to describe the company by some of Microsoft's own employees.<ref>{{cite web | title=Editor's note, MSJ August 1997 | website=] | url=https://www.microsoft.com/msj/0897/ednote0897.aspx | access-date=September 27, 2005 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070214061859/http://www.microsoft.com/msj/0897/ednote0897.aspx | archive-date=February 14, 2007 | url-status=dead }}</ref> This characterization is derived from the perception that Microsoft provides nearly everything for its employees in a convenient place, but in turn overworks them to a point where it would be bad for their (possibly long-term) health. For example, the ]s have free beverages and many buildings include exercise rooms and showers. However, the company has been accused of attempting to keep employees at the company for exceptionally long hours. This is detailed in several books about Microsoft, including ''Hard Drive: Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire''.{{citation needed|date=November 2019}}
====Other suits and rulings by governments====
In March 2004, during a consumer class-action lawsuit in Minnesota, internal documents subpoenaed from Microsoft revealed that the company had violated nondisclosure agreements seven years earlier in obtaining business plans from ], using them to develop and announce a competing product named PenWindows, and convincing Intel to reduce its investment in Go. After Go was purchased by ] and Go's tablet-based computing efforts were shelved, PenWindows development was dropped.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0324-02.htm|title=Newly Released Documents Shed Light on Microsoft Tactics}}</ref>


A US state lawsuit was brought against Microsoft in 1992 representing 8,558 current and former employees that had been classified as "temporary" and "freelance", and became known as '']''. In 1993, the suit became a US Federal Class Action in the United States District Court Western District Of Washington at Seattle as No. C93-178C. The Final Settlement<ref>{{cite web
In May 2004, a ] accused Microsoft of overcharging customers in the state of California. The company settled the case for $1.1 billion, and a California court ordered Microsoft to pay an additional $258 million in legal fees (including over $3,000 per hour for the lead attorney in the case, more than $2,000 per hour for colleagues, and in excess of $1,000 per hour for administrative work). A Microsoft attorney responded, "Somebody ends up paying for this. These large fee awards get passed on to consumers.".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3715375.stm|title=Microsoft's legal bill 'too big'}}</ref> The total bill for legal fees was later reduced to just over $112 million.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://itmatters.com.ph/news/news_09202004d.html|title=San Francisco judge cuts Microsoft legal fees to $100M}}</ref> Because of the structure of the settlement, the law firm which sued Microsoft could end up getting more money from the company than California consumers and schools, the beneficiaries of the settlement.
<!-- looking at page metadata for a "pubdate" -->
| author = Bendich, Stobaugh and Strong P.C.
| title = Microsoft "Permatemps" Case
| date = June 18, 2007
| url = http://www.bs-s.com/cases/c-microsoft-vizcaino.html
| access-date = October 14, 2009
}}</ref> came in 2005. The case was decided on the (IRS-defined) basis that such "permatemps" had their jobs defined by Microsoft, worked alongside regular employees doing the same work, and worked for long terms. After a series of court setbacks including three reversals on appeal, Microsoft settled the suit for US$97&nbsp;million.


A side effect of the "permatemp" lawsuit is that now contract employees are prevented from participating in team morale events and other activities that could be construed as making them "employees". They are also limited to 18-month contracts and must leave after that time for 6 months before returning under contract.
====Suits by private companies====
Microsoft has also fought numerous legal battles against private companies. The most prominent ones are against:
*], which accused Microsoft in the late 1980s of copying the "look and feel" of the graphical user interface of Apple's operating systems. The courts ruled in favor of Microsoft in 1994.
*], which accused Microsoft of exclusionary and anticompetitive behavior intended to drive Be out of the market. Be even offered to license its ] operating system for free to any PC vendors who would ship it pre-installed, but the vendors declined due to what Be believes were fears of pricing retaliation from Microsoft: by raising the price of Microsoft Windows for one particular PC vendor, Microsoft could price that vendor's PCs out of the market.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.beincorporated.com/press/pressreleases/02-02-19_msft_complaint.html|title=Be Incorporated Files Suit Against Microsoft for Violations of Antitrust Laws}}</ref>
*], which claims that Microsoft stole Burst's patented technology for delivering high speed streaming sound and video content on the internet. Also at issue in the case is a 35-week period of missing emails in the evidence Microsoft handed over to Burst which was discovered by Burst.com's lawyers. Burst accuses Microsoft of crafting a 30 day email deletion policy specifically to cover up illegal activity. Microsoft settled with the company for $60 million in exchange for an agreement to license some of the company's technologies.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.burst.com/new/newsevents/chairltr112004.htm|title=Message from a Burst chairman}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.burst.com/new/newsevents/pressrelease007.htm|title=Microsoft Corp. Licenses Burst.com Patents & Settles Suit}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/24/allchin_destroy_email_claim/|title=Allchin named, as proof of MS email destruction policy is sought}}</ref>
*] and ], which accused Microsoft of using some of its software patents in their web browser, won $521 million in court.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/05/eolas_web_patent_nullified/|title=Eolas' web patent nullified}}</ref>
*], which accused Microsoft of having modified Windows 3.1 so that it would not run on ] 6 although there was no technical reason for it not to work.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/factrel.html|title=Caldera submits evidence to counter Microsoft's motions}}</ref> Some claim that Microsoft put encrypted code in five otherwise unrelated Microsoft programs in order to prevent the functioning of DR DOS in pre-releases (]s) of Windows 3.1.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=1030/ddj9309d/9309d.htm|title=Examining the Windows AARD Detection Code}}</ref> Microsoft settled out-of-court for an undisclosed sum.
*] (regarding integration of Internet Explorer into Windows)
*], which accused Microsoft of intentionally making its MSN service incompatible with the Opera browser on several occasions.
*], which accused Microsoft of terminating their partnership so it could steal Sendo's technology to use in Windows Smartphone 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6905|title=Sendo & Microsoft – it all ends in tears}}</ref>
*], which licensed its browser to Microsoft in return for a percentage of each sale; Microsoft turned the browser into Internet Explorer and bundled it with Windows, giving it away to gain market share but effectively destroying any chance of Spyglass making money from the deal they had signed with Microsoft; Spyglass sued for deception and won a $8 million settlement.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/january/new0122d.htm|title=Microsoft's $8 Million Goodbye to Spyglass}}</ref>
*], which accused Microsoft of stealing its data compression code and using it in MS-DOS 6.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.base.com/software-patents/articles/stac.html|title=Microsoft Loses Patent Suit}}</ref>
*], which held Microsoft in violation of contract for including a modified version of Java in Microsoft Windows that allowed applications written with Microsoft proprietary extensions to the Java language to run; Microsoft lost this decision in court. Microsoft responded by not shipping a ] at all, and since then users have had to download one from the Internet on all new Windows installations.
*]
* Many other smaller companies have filed patent abuse and predatory practice suits against Microsoft.


Microsoft is the largest American corporate user of H-1B guest worker visas and has joined other large technology companies like Google in recently lobbying for looser ] restrictions.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/473893dc-ccde-11db-a938-000b5df10621.html|title=Gates warns on US immigration curbs|first=Kevin|last=Allison|date=March 7, 2007|work=Financial Times|access-date=June 9, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070616144350/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/473893dc-ccde-11db-a938-000b5df10621.html|archive-date=June 16, 2007|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070607-senators-companies-with-mass-layoffs-shouldnt-hire-more-foreign-workers.html|title=Senators: Companies with "mass layoffs" shouldn't hire more foreign workers|date=June 7, 2007|access-date=June 14, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081206123129/http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070607-senators-companies-with-mass-layoffs-shouldnt-hire-more-foreign-workers.html|archive-date=December 6, 2008|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301697.html|title=How to Keep America Competitive|first=Bill|last=Gates|date=February 25, 2007|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=August 22, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171214071558/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301697.html|archive-date=December 14, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref>
====Microsoft's investigations and suits of other entities====
In 2006 Microsoft initiated an investigation of ] government institutions for determining whether they choose long-term strategies of the software they use correctly. The investigation, funded by Microsoft itself, will be performed by the Vilnius State University (a governmental institution itself) together with the Lithuanian Institution of the Free Market (which is a ] organization{{fact}}).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.delfi.lt/archive/print.php?id=9502042|title=(Something in Lithuanian(?))|accessdate=2006-05-23}}</ref>


] believes Microsoft should hire more ] and women. Jackson has urged other companies to diversify their workforce. He believes that Microsoft made some progress when it appointed two women to its board of directors in 2015.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kplu.org/post/rev-jesse-jackson-praises-microsofts-diversity-efforts-urges-company-do-more|title=Rev. Jesse Jackson Praises Microsoft's Diversity Efforts, But Urges The Company To Do More|first=Ashley|last=Gross|access-date=December 3, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208082033/http://www.kplu.org/post/rev-jesse-jackson-praises-microsofts-diversity-efforts-urges-company-do-more|archive-date=December 8, 2015|url-status=dead}}</ref>
===Labor practices===
While Microsoft has historically treated employees very well, Microsoft has received several complaints about their treatment of employees. This includes the use of ] employees (employees employed for years as "temporary," and therefore without medical benefits), use of ] tactics, where departing employees would be sued to prevent departure, as well as more traditional cost-saving measures, ranging from cutting medical benefits, to not providing towels in company locker rooms.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_39/b3952001.htm|title=Troubling Exits At Microsoft}}</ref>


== Advertising and public relations ==
Historically, Microsoft has also been accused of overworking employees, in many cases, leading to burnout within just a few years of joining the company. The company is often referred to as a "Velvet Sweatshop", which originated in a Seattle Times article in 1989,<ref>{{cite news | last=Andrews | first=Paul | title=A 'Velvet Sweatshop' or a High-Tech Heaven? | date=] ] | publisher=The Seattle Times | url=http://www.krsaborio.net/research/1980s/89/890423.htm}}</ref> and later became used to describe the company by some of Microsoft's own employees.<ref>{{cite web | title=Editor's note, MSJ August 1997 | url=http://www.microsoft.com/msj/0897/ednote0897.aspx | accessdate=September 27 | accessyear=2005 }}</ref> The focus of the idea is that Microsoft provides nearly everything for their employees in a convenient place, but in turn overworks them to a point where it would be bad for their (possibly long-term) health. For example, the kitchenettes have free beverages and many buildings include exercise rooms and showers. However, the accusation is that they try to keep employees at the company for unreasonably long hours and working too much. This is detailed in several books about Microsoft, including "]."<p>
Critics have alleged that Microsoft has used funding to drum up support from think tanks and trade organizations such as the ] (AdTI), the ], and ] (ATL). During the antitrust case ], ATL sent a poll to 19 state attorneys general purporting to show that "the public believes state AGs should devote their energy to causes other than Microsoft".<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Carney |first=Dan |url=http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_20/b3681219.htm |title=Microsoft's All-Out Counterattack |magazine=Business Week |date=May 15, 2000 |access-date=November 8, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110118071526/http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_20/b3681219.htm |archive-date=January 18, 2011 }}</ref> Also during the case the Independent Institute ran full-page advertisements in '']'' and '']'' defending Microsoft, which was later revealed to have funded the ad campaign.<ref>{{cite news|last=Brinkley|first=Joel|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/18/business/microsoft-covered-cost-of-ads-backing-it-in-antitrust-suit.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm|title=Microsoft Covered Cost of Ads Backing It in Antitrust Suit|date=September 18, 1999|access-date=November 8, 2012|work=The New York Times|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130522012742/http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/18/business/microsoft-covered-cost-of-ads-backing-it-in-antitrust-suit.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm|archive-date=May 22, 2013|url-status=live}}</ref> The institute published ''Winners, Losers, and Microsoft: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology'' shortly thereafter.<ref>{{cite book |title=Winners, Losers, and Microsoft: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology |first1=Stan J. |last1=Liebowitz |first2=Stephen E. |last2=Margolis |publisher=Independent Institute |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-94599-980-5 |pages= |url=https://archive.org/details/winnerslosersmic00lieb/page/344 }}</ref>


In June 2002, the AdTI published a report, quickly pulled under the argument that it was a draft version, which contained criticism of the ] model and the ]. A May 2002 press release for the report stated that it would contain arguments suggesting that governments could be threatened by hackers and ] (who could study potential vulnerabilities due to source availability) if it used ]. However, the draft contained no references to these topics. ] (OSI) founder ] felt that the report had "Microsoft's paws all over ".<ref name="wired-adtireport">{{Cite magazine|url=https://www.wired.com/2002/06/report-flays-open-source-licenses/|title=Report Flays Open-Source Licenses|last=Manjoo|first=Farhad|date=June 11, 2002|magazine=Wired|access-date=May 30, 2019|issn=1059-1028|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191211133507/https://www.wired.com/2002/06/report-flays-open-source-licenses/|archive-date=December 11, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnet.com/news/linux-makes-a-run-for-government/|title=Linux makes a run for government|last=Lemos|first=Robert|publisher=CNET|language=en|access-date=May 30, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190530162738/https://www.cnet.com/news/linux-makes-a-run-for-government/|archive-date=May 30, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> Microsoft argued that its funding was for AdTI's operations as a whole, and not relevant to any specific research by the organization.<ref name="wired-adtireport"/>
More to the point, in 1992 a (US) state lawsuit was brought against Microsoft representing 8,558 current and former employees that had been classified as "temporary" and "freelance", and became known as . In 1993, the suit became a US Federal Class Action in the United States District Court Western District Of Washington At Seattle as No. C93-178C. The Final Settlement<ref>{{cite web
| title=Vizcaino Final Settlement
| url=http://www.bs-s.com/msoft.html
}}</ref> came in 2005. The case was decided on the (IRS-defined) basis that such "permatemps" had their jobs defined by Microsoft, worked alongside regular employees doing the same work, and worked for long terms. After a series of court setbacks including 3 reversals on appeal, Microsoft settled the suit for about US $92.730 million and 44¢.


"]", a 2002 British television advert for the ], received 136 complaints from viewers to the ] (ITC) over its content. The advert featured a newborn baby being launched out of its mother—aging as it flies through the air, and crashing into a gravestone. It contained the tagline "Life is short, play more." The advert was banned from television by the ITC, who considered it to be "offensive, shocking and in bad taste", noting complaints citing the advert's themes of death and the "traumatic experience" the person was facing in the ad.<ref name=Mother>{{cite news|last1=Milmo|first1=Cahal|title=Xbox's advert pulled after protest from TV watchdog|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/xboxs-advert-pulled-after-protest-from-tv-watchdog-179193.html|access-date=April 24, 2017|work=]|date=June 6, 2002|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170425114218/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/xboxs-advert-pulled-after-protest-from-tv-watchdog-179193.html|archive-date=April 25, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-12-06-15-years-on-the-story-behind-one-of-xboxs-most-notorious-tv-ads|title=15 years on: The story behind one of Xbox's most notorious TV ads|website=GamesIndustry.biz|date=December 6, 2016 |language=en|access-date=May 30, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190530162739/https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-12-06-15-years-on-the-story-behind-one-of-xboxs-most-notorious-tv-ads|archive-date=May 30, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>
===Advertising and public relations===
Microsoft contributes money to several think tanks, including the ], the ], the ], the ] and the ]. These organizations have often been called "shills" by Microsoft's critics, who allege that the groups are paid by Microsoft in order to spread Microsoft propaganda under the appearance of being neutral and unaffiliated who instead attempt to harm Microsoft's competitors by spreading ] with statements such as "open-source software may offer target for terrorists".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.com.com/Linux+makes+a+run+for+government/2100-1001_3-950083.html|title=Linux makes a run for government}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39155268,00.htm|title=Report on Linux origins falls at the starting gate}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_20/b3681219.htm|title=Microsoft's All-Out Counterattack}}</ref>


In August 2004, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) of the United Kingdom ordered Microsoft to stop a run of print ads which claimed that the total cost of ownership of Linux servers was ten times that of Windows Server 2003. According to the ASA, the comparison included the price of the hardware, and it put Windows on systems which were less expensive and offered better performance than those on which it put Linux.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?adjudication_id=38475|title=Non-broadcast Adjudication|accessdate=2006-03-31}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3400131|title=Microsoft Ordered to Pull Anti-Linux Ad|accessdate=2006-03-31}}</ref> In August 2004, the ] (ASA) ordered Microsoft to pull ads in Britain that claimed that the total cost of ownership of Linux servers was ten times that of ]. The comparison included the cost of hardware, and put Linux at a disadvantage by installing it on more expensive but poorer-performing hardware compared to that used for Windows.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?adjudication_id=38475 |title=Non-broadcast Adjudication |access-date=March 31, 2006 |publisher=Advertising Standards Authority |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060129211717/http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication%2BDetails.htm?adjudication_id=38475 |archive-date=January 29, 2006 }}<!-- The ASA only keeps adjudications online for 5 years --></ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Kuchinskas|first=Susan|url=http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3400131|title=Microsoft Ordered to Pull Anti-Linux Ad|access-date=March 31, 2006|publisher=IT Business Edge|date=August 26, 2004|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051126052236/http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3400131|archive-date=November 26, 2005|url-status=live}}</ref>


On January 22, 2007, ] made a claim on his blog<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/01/an_interesting_offer.html |title=An interesting offer: get paid to contribute to Misplaced Pages |author=Rick Jelliffe |access-date=January 29, 2015 |date=January 22, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131103125218/http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/01/an_interesting_offer.html |archive-date=November 3, 2013 |url-status=live }}</ref> that a Microsoft employee offered to pay him to make corrections in ] articles concerning ]. Microsoft spokesperson Catherine Brooker expressed the belief that the article had been "heavily written" by IBM employees who supported the rival OpenDocument format, though she provided no specific evidence. Internet entrepreneur and ] founder ] described Microsoft's offer as unethical.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16775981|title=Microsoft offers cash for Misplaced Pages edit|author=Brian Bergstein|website=]|author-link=Brian Bergstein|date=January 23, 2007|access-date=May 25, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131205062212/http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16775981|archive-date=December 5, 2013|url-status=live}}</ref>
===Censorship in mainland China===
{{unsourcedsect}}
] along with ], ], ], ], ], and others, has cooperated with the Chinese government in implementing a system of ].


In 2009, it was found that a photo on the ] version of Microsoft's business productivity website—which depicted three people of various races during an office meeting—had been edited to replace the head of an African-American man with that of a ], whilst also failing to edit the person's hand to match the different skin color. Microsoft apologized and quickly removed the image.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8221896.stm|title=Microsoft in web photo racism row|date=August 26, 2009|access-date=May 28, 2019|work=BBC News|language=en-GB|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190528224610/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8221896.stm|archive-date=May 28, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/aug/26/microsoft-race-gaffe|title=Microsoft apologises over race-swap gaffe|last1=Johnson|first1=Bobbie|date=August 26, 2009|work=The Guardian|access-date=May 28, 2019|last2=Francisco|first2=San|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190528224612/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/aug/26/microsoft-race-gaffe|archive-date=May 28, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>
Many critics of these corporate policies of argue that it is wrong for companies to profit from censorship and restrictions on ] and ].


In 2011, Moneylife.in alleged that two "anonymous comments boosting their product"—one by a ] employee and another by a Microsoft employee—were posted on their review of ], which was based only on the "technical specifications" and the reviewer "hadn't laid a finger on the phone".<ref name="lumia_guradian">{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2011/dec/19/nokia-microsoft-lumia-comments|title=Nokia and Microsoft fingered over comments on adverse Lumia review|newspaper=The Guardian|date=October 18, 2011|access-date=January 14, 2012|location=London|first=Charles|last=Arthur|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140204042222/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2011/dec/19/nokia-microsoft-lumia-comments|archive-date=February 4, 2014|url-status=live}}</ref> In conclusion, Charles Arthur argued "Nobody has come out of the episode looking good. Sapkale was accused of breaking his own site's privacy policy by posting the IP and email addresses of the commenters, while the commenting duo's failure to declare any interest looked, at best, like ]."<ref name="lumia_guradian"/>
Human rights advocates such as ] and media groups such as ] point out that if companies would stop contributing to the authorities' censorship efforts the government could be forced to change.


In 2014 details on a partnership between ] and Microsoft came to light regarding a marketing campaign for ]. Machinima would offer some of its users $3 per thousand views if the user showed 30 seconds of an Xbox One game and mentioned the system by name.<ref name="Xboxone">{{cite news|url=https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stealth-marketing-microsoft-paying-youtubers-for-xbox-one-mentions/|title=Stealth marketing: Microsoft paying YouTubers for Xbox One mentions|publisher=arstechnicha|date=January 20, 2014|access-date=January 21, 2014|first=Kyle|last=Orland|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140120190606/http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stealth-marketing-microsoft-paying-youtubers-for-xbox-one-mentions/|archive-date=January 20, 2014|url-status=live}}</ref> Controversy arose when it was reported that, under the terms of the promotion, participants were not allowed to disclose that they were being paid for said endorsements, which ] said conflicted with ] regulations requiring recipients to fully disclose when such actions occur.<ref name="Xboxone"/> Machinima stated that the confidentiality clause only applied to the terms of the agreement, and not to the existence of the agreement, and Microsoft ended the promotion and directed Machinima to add disclosures to the videos involved.<ref name="Xboxone" /> In September 2015, Machinima settled with the FTC over charges that the ad campaign failed to comply with FTC endorsement guidelines; the FTC decided not to take action against Microsoft since it already has "policies and procedures designed to prevent such lapses".<ref name=orland>{{cite web|last1=Orland|first1=Kyle|title=Machinima settles with FTC over "deceptive" Xbox promotion|url=https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/09/machinima-settles-with-ftc-over-deceptive-xbox-promotion/|website=Ars Technica|access-date=September 4, 2015|date=September 2, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150904112512/http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/09/machinima-settles-with-ftc-over-deceptive-xbox-promotion/|archive-date=September 4, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref>
==Total cost of ownership==
{{main|Studies related to Microsoft}}
The full cost of software extends far beyond the purchase of the software itself; it can include costs for support, training, and upgrades. There is an ongoing debate regarding how to accurately measure the cost of software.


Since the 2010s, Microsoft has faced criticism for using ]-like tactics to market recent software and services.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Williams |first=Chris |title=Microsoft pushes Bing, GPT-4 in Chrome pop-up adverts |url=https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/15/chrome_bing_microsoft_pop_ups/ |access-date=2024-03-19 |website=The Register |language=en}}</ref> Microsoft faced criticism over its marketing and distribution of no-cost ] upgrades for ] and ] users, which included a "Get Windows 10" application automatically downloaded via ] that displayed popups advertising the offer,<ref name="cw-forced10">{{cite web |last=Keizer |first=Gregg |date=September 15, 2015 |title=Microsoft's decision to pre-load Windows 10 upgrade sans consent is ill-advised |url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/2984312/microsofts-decision-to-pre-load-windows-10-upgrade-sans-consent-is-ill-advised.html |access-date=May 14, 2019 |website=Computerworld |publisher=]}}</ref><ref name="infoworld_2015_KB3035583">{{cite web |last=Leonhard |first=Woody |date=May 15, 2015 |title=Microsoft re-re-re-issues controversial Windows 10 patch KB 3035583 |url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/2922604/microsoft-re-re-re-issues-controversial-windows-10-advertising-patch-kb-3035583.html |access-date=April 22, 2019 |work=] |publisher=]}}</ref><ref name="infoworld_2016_KB3035583">{{cite web |last=Leonhard |first=Woody |date=February 24, 2016 |title=Get Windows 10 patch KB 3035583 suddenly reappears on Win7/8.1 PCs |url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/3037393/get-windows-10-nagware-patch-kb-3035583-suddenly-reappears-on-win781-pcs.html |access-date=April 22, 2019 |work=] |publisher=]}}</ref> use of ] to coax users into installing the operating system,<ref name="infoworld_2015_KB3035583" /><ref name="infoworld-upgradetonight">{{cite web |last=Leonhard |first=Woody |date=December 15, 2015 |title=Microsoft narrows Win10 upgrade options to 'Upgrade now' or 'Upgrade tonight' |url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/3015238/microsoft-narrows-win10-upgrade-options-to-upgrade-now-or-upgrade-tonight.html |access-date=April 22, 2019 |website=] |publisher=]}}</ref><ref name="ars-w10optional">{{cite web |last=Bright |first=Peter |date=October 16, 2015 |title=Windows 10 upgrade installing automatically on some Windows 7, 8 systems |url=https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/10/windows-10-upgrade-installing-automatically-on-some-windows-7-8-systems/ |access-date=April 22, 2019 |website=]}}</ref><ref name="infoworld_2016_KB3035583" /> downloading installation files without user consent,<ref name="pcw-didntask">{{cite news |last=Newman |first=Jared |date=September 11, 2015 |title=Didn't ask for Windows 10? Your PC may have downloaded it anyway |url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/2983162/didnt-ask-for-windows-10-your-pc-may-have-downloaded-it-anyway.html |access-date=May 14, 2019 |website=]}}</ref><ref name="cw-forced10" /> and making it difficult for users to suppress the advertising and notifications if they did not wish to upgrade to Windows 10.<ref name="pcw-didntask" /><ref name="cw-forced10" /><ref name="iw-banishing">{{cite web |last=Leonhard |first=Woody |date=January 8, 2016 |title=Banishing 'Get Windows 10' nagware isn't as easy as you think |url=http://www.infoworld.com/article/3020460/microsoft-windows/banishing-get-windows-10-nagware-isnt-as-easy-as-you-think.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161218134635/http://www.infoworld.com/article/3020460/microsoft-windows/banishing-get-windows-10-nagware-isnt-as-easy-as-you-think.html |archive-date=December 18, 2016 |access-date=January 12, 2016 |website=InfoWorld |publisher=]}}</ref> Microsoft has used advertising embedded in the ] search engine and ] web browser to discourage the use of competing web browser ] (which shares the same ] as Bing), including displaying prominent ads on specific search terms, and programming Edge to inject on-screen notifications and banner advertising when browsing Chrome's web site.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Cunningham |first=Andrew |date=2021-12-02 |title=Microsoft Edge will now warn users about the dangers of downloading Google Chrome |url=https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/12/microsoft-edge-will-now-warn-users-about-the-dangers-of-downloading-google-chrome/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211206101444/https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/12/microsoft-edge-will-now-warn-users-about-the-dangers-of-downloading-google-chrome/ |archive-date=December 6, 2021 |access-date=2021-12-06 |website=Ars Technica |language=en-us}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Warren |first=Tom |date=2021-12-02 |title=Microsoft's new Windows prompts try to stop people downloading Chrome |url=https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/2/22813733/microsoft-windows-edge-download-chrome-prompts |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211202183625/https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/2/22813733/microsoft-windows-edge-download-chrome-prompts |archive-date=December 2, 2021 |access-date=2021-12-02 |website=The Verge |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Honorof |first1=Marshall |date=3 December 2021 |title=Microsoft tries to stop users from installing Chrome — again |url=https://www.tomsguide.com/news/microsoft-edge-chrome-installation |access-date=5 July 2023 |website=Tom's Guide |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Li |first1=Abner |title=Microsoft aggressively trying to keep Chrome downloaders using Edge |url=https://9to5google.com/2023/02/21/microsoft-edge-chrome/ |access-date=5 July 2023 |website=]}}</ref> In 2023 and 2024, Microsoft began using notifications to encourage Chrome users to switch to Microsoft Bing and ].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Warren |first=Tom |date=2024-03-15 |title=Microsoft is stuffing pop-up ads into Google Chrome on Windows again |url=https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/15/24101887/microsoft-bing-popups-windows-11-google-chrome |access-date=2024-03-20 |website=The Verge |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Warren |first=Tom |date=2023-08-30 |title=Microsoft is using malware-like pop-ups in Windows 11 to get people to ditch Google |url=https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/30/23851902/microsoft-bing-popups-windows-11-malware |access-date=2024-03-20 |website=The Verge |language=en}}</ref>
Microsoft supporters argue that the position and architecture of Microsoft software results in a lower "total cost of ownership" than competing open-source solutions such as ], the ] web server, or the ] database. They contend that:
* Microsoft software is designed to be easy to configure, allowing companies to hire lower-paid non-expert systems administrators.
* There is a large pool of trained and certified Microsoft administrators available to help in deploying and managing Microsoft systems.
* The Microsoft software ecosystem is designed to work well together since many products come from the same vendor.


== Tax avoidance ==
Detractors argue that users do not own Microsoft software - it is licensed, forcing the user to have to obey the vendor's licensing agreements, and requiring regular upgrade costs - and therefore "total cost of ownership" comparisons with open source software do not compare like with like. Furthermore:
* Lower base staff competence can create more problems.
* Reducing ] requires highly trained systems administrators, regardless of the operating system in use; insecurity can result in large additional costs and losses.


As reported by several news outlets,<ref>{{cite news|last1=Hancock|first1=Ciarán|title=Irish-registered subsidiary of Microsoft records $314bn profit|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/irish-registered-subsidiary-of-microsoft-records-314bn-profit-1.4565525|access-date=June 3, 2021|newspaper=The Irish Times}}</ref><ref name="Neate">{{cite web|last1=Neate|first1=Rupert|title=Microsoft's Irish subsidiary paid zero corporation tax on £220bn profit|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/03/microsoft-irish-subsidiary-paid-zero-corporate-tax-on-220bn-profit-last-year?ref=upstract.com&curator=upstract.com|access-date=June 3, 2021|website=The Guardian|date=June 3, 2021}}</ref> an Irish subsidiary of Microsoft based in the ] declared £220 bn in profits but paid no corporation tax for the year 2020. This is due to the company being tax resident in ] as mentioned in the accounts for 'Microsoft Round Island One', a subsidiary that collects licence fees from the use of Microsoft software worldwide. Dame ], a ] ] in the UK said, "It is unsurprising – yet still shocking – that massively wealthy global corporations openly, unashamedly and blatantly refuse to pay tax on the profits they make in the countries where they undertake business".<ref name="Neate" />
==See also==
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


In 2020, ] reported that the company had diverted more than $39 billion in U.S. profits to Puerto Rico using a mechanism structured to make it seem as if the company was unprofitable on paper. As a result, the company paid a tax rate on those profits of "nearly 0%." When the ] audited these transactions, ProPublica reported that Microsoft aggressively fought back, including successfully lobbying Congress to change the law to make it harder for the agency to conduct audits of large corporations.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Doctorow|first=Cory|date=2020-01-22|title=The sordid tale of Microsoft's epic tax evasion and the war they waged against the IRS|url=https://boingboing.net/2020/01/22/clippy-dodges-taxes.html|access-date=2022-02-15|website=Boing Boing|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Kiel|first=Paul|title=The IRS Decided to Get Tough Against Microsoft. Microsoft Got Tougher.|url=https://www.propublica.org/article/the-irs-decided-to-get-tough-against-microsoft-microsoft-got-tougher|access-date=2022-02-15|website=ProPublica|date=January 22, 2020 |language=en}}</ref>
==References==

* Charles, John. "Indecent proposal? Doing Business With Microsoft". IEEE Software. January/February 1998. pp. 113-117.
== Blacklisting of journalists ==
] said that in the 1980s, Microsoft classified journalists as "Okay", "Sketchy", or "Needs work" and targeted "Needs work" journalists in an attempt to have them terminated. Dvorak said that he was denied information about Windows because he was on a blacklist.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2325778,00.asp | work=PC Magazine | first=John C. | last=Dvorak | title=Microsoft, the Spandex Granny | date=July 17, 2008 | access-date=August 26, 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170113180648/http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2325778,00.asp | archive-date=January 13, 2017 | url-status=live }}</ref> ] stated that she was denied interviews with Microsoft personnel for several years following the publication of a story based on a memo describing the number of bugs in Windows 2000 at release.<ref>{{usurped|1=}}</ref>

== Censorship in China == <!-- This section is linked from ] -->
Microsoft (along with Google, ], ], ], ], and other companies) has cooperated with the ] in implementing a system of ].<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Gallagher |first=Ryan |date=March 7, 2024 |title=How Microsoft's Bing Helps Maintain Beijing's Great Firewall |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-03-07/microsoft-s-bing-helps-maintain-china-s-great-firewall |access-date=March 26, 2024 |work=]}}</ref><ref name="Human Rights Watch">{{cite journal | url=https://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/ | title=Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship | journal=Human Rights Watch | date=August 9, 2006 | access-date=November 23, 2006 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061122231425/http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/ | archive-date=November 22, 2006 | url-status=live }}</ref> Human rights advocates such as ] and media groups such as ] criticized the companies, noting for example that it is "ironic that companies whose existence depends on freedom of information and expression have taken on the role of censor."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/09/china13940.htm|title=China: Internet Companies Aid Censorship|date=August 10, 2006|access-date=February 6, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070214054520/http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/09/china13940.htm|archive-date=February 14, 2007|url-status=live}}</ref> Since 2009, Microsoft has run a local version of Bing in China that censors thousands of websites and phrases such as "human rights" and "Communist Party corruption".<ref name=":3" />

=== Bing censorship of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre ===
{{See also|Chinese censorship abroad}}
On June 4, 2021, the ], searches for the ] image and videos were censored by ] search engine worldwide. Hours after Microsoft acknowledged the issue, the search returned only pictures of tanks elsewhere in the world. Search engines that license results from Microsoft such as ] and ] faced similar issues. Microsoft said the issue was "due to an accidental human error."<ref>{{cite news |title=Microsoft says error led to no matching Bing images for Tiananmen 'tank man' |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-bing-raises-concerns-over-lack-image-results-tiananmen-tank-man-2021-06-04/ |work=Reuters |date=June 4, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Microsoft blocks Bing from showing image results for Tiananmen 'tank man' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jun/04/microsoft-bing-tiananmen-tank-man-results |work=The Guardian |date=June 5, 2021 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Bing Censors Image Search for 'Tank Man' Even in US |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8v9m/bing-censors-tank-man |work=VICE |language=en}}</ref>

The director of ], ], said he found the idea it was an inadvertent error "hard to believe". David Greene, ] Director at ], said that content moderation was impossible to do perfectly and "egregious mistakes are made all the time", but he further elaborated that "At worst, this was purposeful suppression at the request of a powerful state."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Tilley |first1=Aaron |title=Microsoft's Bing Temporarily Blocked Searches of Tiananmen Square 'Tank Man' Image |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsofts-bing-temporarily-blocked-searches-of-tiananmen-square-tank-man-image-11622845011 |work=The Wall Street Journal |date=June 4, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Microsoft says error caused 'Tank Man' Bing censorship |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57367100 |work=BBC News |date=June 5, 2021}}</ref>

== Privacy issues ==
=== Collaboration with the NSA on internet surveillance ===
{{see also|_NSAKEY}}

Microsoft was the first company to participate in ], according to leaked NSA documents obtained by ''The Guardian''<ref>{{cite news|last=Greenwald|first=Glenn|author-link=Glenn Greenwald|title=NSA taps in to internet giants' systems to mine user data, secret files reveal|work=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data|access-date=June 6, 2013|date=June 6, 2013|location=London|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060818114650/http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data|archive-date=August 18, 2006|url-status=live}}</ref> and ''The Washington Post''<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html?hpid=z1 |title=U.S. intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies in broad secret program |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=June 6, 2013 |access-date=June 6, 2013 |first1=Barton |last1=Gellman |first2=Laura |last2=Poitras |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130615061900/http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html?hpid=z1 |archive-date=June 15, 2013 |url-status=live }}</ref> in June 2013, and acknowledged by government officials following the leak.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Savage|first1=Charlie|last2=Wyatt|first2=Edward|last3=Baker|first3=Peter|title=U.S. says it gathers online data abroad|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us/nsa-verizon-calls.html|newspaper=The New York Times|date=June 6, 2013|access-date=February 18, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170216072437/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us/nsa-verizon-calls.html|archive-date=February 16, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> The program authorizes the government to secretly access data of non-US citizens hosted by American companies without a warrant. Microsoft has denied<ref>{{cite web |url=https://techcrunch.com/2013/06/06/google-facebook-apple-deny-participation-in-nsa-prism-program/ |title=Google, Facebook, Dropbox, Yahoo, Microsoft And Apple Deny Participation In NSA PRISM Surveillance Program |work=Tech Crunch |date=June 6, 2013 |access-date=June 6, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130613004834/http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/06/google-facebook-apple-deny-participation-in-nsa-prism-program/ |archive-date=June 13, 2013 |url-status=live }}</ref> participation in such a program.

In July 2013, ''The Guardian'' elaborated that leaked documents show that:
* Microsoft helped the NSA to circumvent its encryption to intercept web chats on ] and gave it unencrypted access to Outlook.com and ] email.
* Microsoft provided the NSA with access to users' data on its ] OneDrive (formerly SkyDrive).
* After Microsoft bought ], the NSA tripled the number of Skype video calls being collected through PRISM.<ref name="Guardian12July"/>
In a statement, Microsoft said that they "provide customer data only in response to legal processes."<ref name="Guardian12July">{{cite news|last=Greenwald|first=Glenn|author-link=Glenn Greenwald|title=How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data|access-date=July 12, 2013|newspaper=The Guardian|date=July 12, 2013|author2=Ewen MacAskill|author3=Laura Poitras|author4=Spencer Ackerman|author5=Dominic Rushe|location=London|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151119014627/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data|archive-date=November 19, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Telemetry and data collection ===
] was criticized on-launch for having default settings that send various information regarding user behaviors to Microsoft and its "trusted partners", such as data regarding user contacts and calendar events, location data and history, "telemetry" (diagnostics data);<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-telemetry-secrets/|title=Windows 10 telemetry secrets: Where, when, and why Microsoft collects your data|last=Bott|first=Ed|publisher=ZDNet|language=en|access-date=July 30, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190712012214/https://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-telemetry-secrets/|archive-date=July 12, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> this could not be fully disabled on non-enterprise versions of Windows 10), an "advertising ID", as well as further data when the ] assistant is enabled in full.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/windows-10-doesnt-offer-much-privacy-by-default-heres-how-to-fix-it/|title=Windows 10 doesn't offer much privacy by default: Here's how to fix it|last=Anthony|first=Sebastian|date=August 4, 2015|website=Ars Technica|language=en-us|access-date=May 28, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190528175753/https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/windows-10-doesnt-offer-much-privacy-by-default-heres-how-to-fix-it/|archive-date=May 28, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=extremetech-privacysettings>{{cite web |title=Windows 10s default privacy settings and controls leave much to be desired |url=http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/211208-windows-10s-default-privacy-settings-and-controls-leave-much-to-be-desired |website=] |publisher=] |access-date=July 31, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150730185512/http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/211208-windows-10s-default-privacy-settings-and-controls-leave-much-to-be-desired |archive-date=July 30, 2015 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/31/windows-10-microsoft-faces-criticism-over-privacy-default-settings|title=Windows 10: Microsoft under attack over privacy|last=Hern|first=Alex|date=August 1, 2015|work=The Guardian|access-date=May 28, 2019|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190528175753/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/31/windows-10-microsoft-faces-criticism-over-privacy-default-settings|archive-date=May 28, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>

Microsoft faced criticism from France's data protection commission and the ] for its practices in regards to Windows 10. On subsequent iterations of the OS, Microsoft has clarified its data collection policies, and made its ] provide clearer information on Windows privacy settings, and the effects they have on the overall user experience.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/6/17086754/microsoft-windows-10-privacy-changes-features|title=Microsoft's new Windows 10 privacy controls should avoid 'keylogger' concerns|last=Warren|first=Tom|date=March 6, 2018|website=The Verge|access-date=May 28, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190528175753/https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/6/17086754/microsoft-windows-10-privacy-changes-features|archive-date=May 28, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2016/7/21/12246266/france-microsoft-privacy-windows-10-cnil|title=France orders Microsoft to stop tracking Windows 10 users|last=Toor|first=Amar|date=July 21, 2016|website=The Verge|access-date=May 28, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190528175753/https://www.theverge.com/2016/7/21/12246266/france-microsoft-privacy-windows-10-cnil|archive-date=May 28, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/5/15188636/microsoft-windows-10-data-collection-documents-privacy-concerns|title=Microsoft finally reveals what data Windows 10 really collects|last=Warren|first=Tom|date=April 5, 2017|website=The Verge|access-date=May 28, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190528175753/https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/5/15188636/microsoft-windows-10-data-collection-documents-privacy-concerns|archive-date=May 28, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14682256/microsoft-windows-10-eu-privacy-concerns|title=EU still concerned over Windows 10 privacy despite Microsoft's changes|last=Warren|first=Tom|date=February 21, 2017|website=The Verge|access-date=May 28, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190528175753/https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14682256/microsoft-windows-10-eu-privacy-concerns|archive-date=May 28, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> Microsoft also simplified its "telemetry" options to only consist of "Basic" and "Full" modes, and reduced the amount of system information collected in "Basic" mode.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.extremetech.com/computing/243079-upcoming-windows-update-reduces-spying-microsoft-still-mum-data-collects|title=Upcoming Windows 10 update reduces spying, but Microsoft is still mum on which data it specifically collects|website=ExtremeTech|access-date=May 28, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190528223542/https://www.extremetech.com/computing/243079-upcoming-windows-update-reduces-spying-microsoft-still-mum-data-collects|archive-date=May 28, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>

In November 2018, the Dutch government issued a report stating that telemetry implementations in ] violated the EU ] (GDPR).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/dutch-government-report-says-microsoft-office-telemetry-collection-breaks-gdpr/|title=Dutch government report says Microsoft Office telemetry collection breaks GDPR|last=Cimpanu|first=Catalin|publisher=ZDNet|language=en|access-date=May 28, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190608114905/https://www.zdnet.com/article/dutch-government-report-says-microsoft-office-telemetry-collection-breaks-gdpr/|archive-date=June 8, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> In July 2019 the company tasked with investigating the privacy risks reported that Microsoft had adequately addressed these issues in Office 365 ProPlus, while the other concerns still remained.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.privacycompany.eu/blogpost-en/new-dpia-on-microsoft-office-and-windows-software-still-privacy-risks-remaining-short-blog|title=New DPIA on Microsoft Office and Windows software: still privacy risks remaining (short blog)|date=July 29, 2019}}</ref>

==Robot journalism==
In May 2020, Microsoft announced that a number of its ] contract journalists would be replaced by robot journalism leading to criticism about which stories would be displayed and their quality.<ref>{{cite news |title=Microsoft sacks journalists to replace them with robots |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/30/microsoft-sacks-journalists-to-replace-them-with-robots |work=The Guardian |date=May 30, 2020 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Microsoft 'to replace journalists with robots' |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52860247 |access-date=May 31, 2020 |work=BBC News |date=May 30, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Microsoft is cutting dozens of MSN news production workers and replacing them with artificial intelligence |url=https://www.seattletimes.com/business/local-business/microsoft-is-cutting-dozens-of-msn-news-production-workers-and-replacing-them-with-artificial-intelligence/ |work=The Seattle Times |date=May 29, 2020}}</ref>

==Xbox live controversies==
===Xbox Live prohibition on use of the word "gay"===
Microsoft has come under some criticism for its attitude to homosexuality and Xbox Live. Users may not use the string "gay" in a gamertag (even in a non-homosexual context, for example as part of a surname), or refer to homosexuality in their profile (including self-identifying as such), as the company considers this "content of a sexual nature" or "offensive" to other users and therefore unsuitable for the service.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://kotaku.com/390593/thegayergamer-gets-xbox-live-ban-microsoft-explains|title="theGAYERGamer" Gets Xbox Live Ban, Microsoft Explains|first=Leigh|last=Alexander|newspaper=Kotaku |date=May 14, 2008 |access-date=March 4, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090301130559/http://kotaku.com/390593/thegayergamer-gets-xbox-live-ban-microsoft-explains|archive-date=March 1, 2009|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://kotaku.com/5010324/microsoft-explains-gaywood-ban|title=Microsoft Explains "Gaywood" Ban|first=Leigh|last=Alexander|date=May 21, 2008 |access-date=March 4, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090228083923/http://kotaku.com/5010324/microsoft-explains-gaywood-ban|archive-date=February 28, 2009|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://consumerist.com/2009/02/25/identifying-yourself-as-a-lesbian-gets-you-banned-on-xbox-live/|title=Identifying Yourself As A Lesbian Gets You Banned On XBOX Live|newspaper=Consumerist |date=February 25, 2009|access-date=September 29, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161008172650/https://consumerist.com/2009/02/25/identifying-yourself-as-a-lesbian-gets-you-banned-on-xbox-live/|archive-date=October 8, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> After banning 'Teresa', a lesbian gamer who had been harassed by other users for being a homosexual, a senior Xbox Live team member, ], has clarified the policy, stating that "Expression of any sexual orientation is not allowed in gamertags" but that they are "examining how we can provide it in a way that won't get misused".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://kotaku.com/5160677/microsoft-looking-to-change-xbox-live-sexual-discrimination|title=Microsoft Looking To Change Xbox Live Sexual "Discrimination"|first=Luke|last=Plunkett|access-date=March 4, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130516062012/http://kotaku.com/5160677/microsoft-looking-to-change-xbox-live-sexual-discrimination|archive-date=May 16, 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{dead link|date=August 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> ] weighed in on the controversy as well, supporting the steps that Microsoft has taken over the years to engage the LGBT community.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://glaadblog.org/2009/02/26/xbox-live-homophobia-and-online-gaming-policy|title=XBox Live, Homophobia, and Online Gaming Policy|date=September 14, 2011|access-date=July 3, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090416073323/http://glaadblog.org/2009/02/26/xbox-live-homophobia-and-online-gaming-policy/|archive-date=April 16, 2009|url-status=live}}</ref>

===2021 Xbox Live subscription price increase===
On January 22, 2021, Microsoft announced that the pricing model for ] subscriptions would be increasing across each price tier, with a year of the service doubling from US$60 to US$120 for users.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Warren|first=Tom|date=January 22, 2021|title=Microsoft is increasing the price of Xbox Live Gold|url=https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/22/22244173/microsoft-xbox-live-gold-price-increase-pricing|access-date=January 23, 2021|website=The Verge|language=en}}</ref> The move was met with widespread criticism from users and news media, with speculation that the change was meant to make the ] subscription more enticing.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Blumenthal|first=Eli|title=Microsoft gives Xbox Live Gold a price hike to make Game Pass more tempting|url=https://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-gives-xbox-live-gold-a-price-hike-to-make-game-pass-more-tempting/|access-date=January 23, 2021|publisher=CNET|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Warren|first=Tom|date=January 22, 2021|title=Microsoft risks a year of goodwill with its Xbox Live price hike|url=https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/22/22244468/microsoft-xbox-live-price-increase|access-date=January 23, 2021|website=The Verge|language=en}}</ref> In response to the backlash, on the same day that the price increase was announced, Microsoft reversed the decision to increase the price of Xbox Live.<ref>{{Cite web|date=January 22, 2021|title=No Changes to Xbox Live Gold Pricing, Free-to-Play Games to be Unlocked |url=https://news.xbox.com/en-us/2021/01/22/update-on-xbox-live-gold-pricing/|access-date=January 23, 2021|website=Xbox Wire|language=en-US}}</ref>

== ANS patent controversy ==
] is widely used family of method in data compression, whose author gave it to public domain - wanting to be unrestricted by the patent system, also successfully defending from patent by Google.<ref>{{cite web |title=After Patent Office Rejection, It is Time For Google To Abandon Its Attempt to Patent Use of Public Domain Algorithm |date=August 30, 2018 |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/08/after-patent-office-rejection-it-time-google-abandon-its-attempt-patent-use-public |publisher=EFF}}</ref> In June 2019 Microsoft lodged a patent application called 'Features of range asymmetric number system encoding and decoding'.<ref name=":2">{{cite web |title=Features of range asymmetric number system encoding and decoding |url=https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200413106A1 |access-date=June 14, 2021}}</ref> The USPTO issued a final rejection of the application on October 27, 2020. Yet on March 2, 2021, Microsoft gave a USPTO explanatory filing stating "The Applicant respectfully disagrees with the rejections,<ref>{{cite web |title=Third time's a harm? Microsoft tries to get twice-rejected compression patent past skeptical examiners |url=https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/13/microsoft_ans_patent/ |publisher=The Register |access-date=June 14, 2021}}</ref> seeking to overturn the final rejection under the "After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0" program.<ref>{{cite web |title=After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 |url=https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/after-final-consideration-pilot-20 |website=United States Patent and Trademark Office |access-date=June 14, 2021}}</ref> The application is currently still pending,<ref name=":2" /> as USPTO has not confirmed if it will allow the rejection appeal to proceed.

== Xinjiang region ==
{{Further|Persecution of Uyghurs in China}}
In 2020, the ] accused at least 82 major brands of being connected to forced ] labor in ]. Microsoft is reported as being supplied by three Chinese factories employing Uyghur and Xinjiang workers.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Xu |first1=Vicky Xiuzhong |author-link=Vicky Xu |last2=Cave |first2=Danielle |last3=Leibold |first3=James |last4=Munro |first4=Kelsey |last5=Ruser |first5=Nathan |date=1 March 2020 |title=Uyghurs for sale |url=https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200824215335/https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale |archive-date=August 24, 2020 |access-date=March 14, 2022 |website=] |publisher=}}</ref> In 2024, a Microsoft incubator was reported to have provided support to two Chinese companies that sell software used for ].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Chiu |first=Joanna |date=2024-11-19 |title=Chinese startups supported by Microsoft and Google incubator programs worked with police |url=https://restofworld.org/2024/microsoft-google-chinese-startup-incubator-police-surveillance/ |access-date=2024-11-21 |website=] |language=en-US}}</ref>

== See also ==
'''Criticism of other software companies:'''
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
<br />
'''General mechanisms at work:'''
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]

== References ==
{{Reflist|30em}}

== Further reading ==
* Charles, John. "Indecent proposal? Doing Business With Microsoft". IEEE Software. January/February 1998. pp.{{nbsp}}113–117.
* Clark, Jim with Owen Edwards. Netscape Time: The Making of the Billion Dollar Start-up That Took on Microsoft. New York, Saint Martin's Press, 1999 * Clark, Jim with Owen Edwards. Netscape Time: The Making of the Billion Dollar Start-up That Took on Microsoft. New York, Saint Martin's Press, 1999
* Cusumano, Michael A.; Selby, Richard W. . New York: Free Press, 1995. * Cusumano, Michael A.; Selby, Richard W. . New York: Free Press, 1995.
* Edstrom, Jennifer; Eller, Marlin. Barbarians Led by Bill Gates: Microsoft from inside: . N.Y. Holt, 1998. * Edstrom, Jennifer; Eller, Marlin. Barbarians Led by Bill Gates: Microsoft from inside: {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040816120510/http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2VQCBE84TR&isbn=0805057544&itm=2 |date=August 16, 2004 }}. N.Y. Holt, 1998.
* {{cite book |title=The Microsoft Antitrust Cases – Competition Policy for the Twenty-first Century
*{{cite book
|author-first1=Andrew I. |author-last1=Gavil |author-first2=Harry |author-last2=First |publisher=] |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA |date=December 9, 2014 |isbn=978-0-262-02776-2 }}
| first =Wendy
*{{cite book |author-first=Wendy |author-last=Goldman Rohm |date=September 1998 |title=The Microsoft File: the secret case against Bill Gates |publisher=] |location=New York, NY 10022, USA |isbn=0-8129-2716-8 |url=https://archive.org/details/microsoftfilesec00rohm }}
| last =Goldman Rohm
* Lemos, Robert. (2003). ''U.S. funds study of tech monocultures''. Retrieved December 20, 2003, from https://web.archive.org/web/20110810000229/http://news.cnet.com/2100-7355-5111905.html
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| year = 1998
| month =September
| title =The Microsoft File: the secret case against Bill Gates
| chapter =
| editor =
| others =
| edition =
| pages =
| publisher = Times Books
| location =New York, NY 10022
| id = ISBN 0-8129-2716-8
| url =http://www.randomhouse.com
}}
* Lemos, Robert. (2003). ''U.S. funds study of tech monocultures''. Retrieved ] ], from http://news.com.com/2100-7355-5111905.html?tag=nefd_hed
* Moody, Fred. I Sing the Body Electronic: A Year With Microsoft on the Multimedia Frontier. New York: Viking, 1995. * Moody, Fred. I Sing the Body Electronic: A Year With Microsoft on the Multimedia Frontier. New York: Viking, 1995.
* National Science Foundation. (2003). ''Taking Cues from Mother Nature to Foil Cyber Attacks''. Retrieved ] ], from http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr03130.htm * National Science Foundation. (2003). ''Taking Cues from Mother Nature to Foil Cyber Attacks''. Retrieved December 20, 2003, from https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr03130.htm
* Groklaw portal on Microsoft litigation
* Bozman, Jean; Gillen, Al; Kolodgy, Charles; Kusnetzky, Dan; Perry, Randy; & Shiang, David (October 2002). "". ''IDC'', sponsored by ''Microsoft Corporation''. White paper.
* In an article published by , Dan Kunsnetzky suggests that study was stacked against Linux.


== External links ==
==Footnotes==
'''Discussions of Microsoft's business practices<nowiki>:</nowiki>'''
<references/>
*
*
*
* http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
* – Analyzes Microsoft's business practices and software
* – by The Linux Information Project (LINFO)
* by ''The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism''
*
<br />
'''TCO<nowiki>:</nowiki>'''
* Bozman, Jean; Gillen, Al; Kolodgy, Charles; Kusnetzky, Dan; Perry, Randy; & Shiang, David (October 2002). "". ''IDC'', sponsored by ''Microsoft Corporation''. White paper.
* In an article published by BusinessWeek, Dan Kusnetzky suggests that the study was stacked against Linux.
* {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080726190850/http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118937,00.asp |date=July 26, 2008 }}
<br />
'''Tax evasion<nowiki>:</nowiki>'''
*
*
<br />
'''User feedback<nowiki>:</nowiki>'''
*


=== Related media ===
==External links==
* {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090208185044/http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39384073,00.htm |date=February 8, 2009 }}
*Discussions of Microsoft's business practices:
**
**
**
**
** http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
**
**
** http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
** - Analyzes Microsoft's business practices and software
** http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/PatentPlayersMicrosoft
** http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/MsAntitrust
** by Tony Bove, author of "Just Say No to Microsoft" book
** by ''The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism''
**
**
**
** on GetGNULinux.org
*Debate
** a lively & informative ongoing debate over open vs. closed systems, open vs. closed standards, and the OpenDocument format (ODF)
*TCO
**
**


] {{Microsoft}}
]


] {{DEFAULTSORT:Criticism Of Microsoft}}
]
]

Latest revision as of 23:29, 20 December 2024

Criticism of Microsoft has followed various aspects of its products and business practices. Issues with ease of use, robustness, and security of the company's software are common targets for critics. In the 2000s, a number of malware mishaps targeted security flaws in Windows and other products. Microsoft was also accused of locking vendors and consumers in to their products, and of not following or complying with existing standards in its software. Total cost of ownership comparisons between Linux and Microsoft Windows are a continuous point of debate.

The company has been the subject of numerous lawsuits, brought by several governments and by other companies, for unlawful monopolistic practices. In 2004, the European Union found Microsoft guilty in the Microsoft Corp. v. Commission case, and it received an 899 million euro fine.

Ties to US Government departments

On September 14, 2019, Microsoft's flagship store was shut down by protestors as part of a direct action organized by Close the Camps NYC. The action was in response to Microsoft's $19.4 million contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Microsoft's relationship with the immigration enforcement agency was revealed by executive Tom Keane, through a company blog post that describes ICE's use of the company's high-security cloud storage product Azure Government. He went on to say the company is "proud to support" the work of ICE. Microsoft has stated it "is not working with the U.S. government on any projects related to separating children from their families at the border."

In February 2019, some of Microsoft’s employees protested the company's war profiteering from a $480 million contract to develop augmented reality headsets for the United States Army.

Vendor lock-in

From its inception, Microsoft defined itself as a platform company and understood the importance of attracting third-party programmers. It did so by providing development tools, training, access to proprietary APIs in early versions, and partner programs. Although the resulting ubiquity of Microsoft software allows a user to benefit from network effects, critics and even Microsoft itself decry what they consider to be an "embrace, extend and extinguish" strategy of adding proprietary features to open standards or their software implementations, thereby using its market dominance to gain unofficial ownership of standards "extended" in this way.

Microsoft software is also presented as a "safe" choice for IT managers purchasing software systems. In an internal memo for senior management Microsoft's head of C++ development, Aaron Contorer, stated:

The Windows API is so broad, so deep, and so functional that most independent software vendors would be crazy not to use it. And it is so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system instead... It is this switching cost that has given the customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO (total cost of ownership), our lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move. In short, without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago.

More recently, Microsoft had their OOXML specification approved by the ISO standards body in a manner consistent with previous attempts to control standards.

With the release of Windows 8, Microsoft began requiring OEM devices to ship with UEFI system firmware, configured by default to only allow the execution of operating system binaries digitally signed by Microsoft (UEFI secure boot). Concerns were raised that this requirement would hinder the use of alternate operating systems such as Linux. In a post discussing secure boot on the Building Windows 8 blog, Microsoft developer Tony Mangefeste indicated that vendors would provide means to customize secure boot, stating that "At the end of the day, the customer is in control of their PC. Microsoft's philosophy is to provide customers with the best experience first, and allow them to make decisions themselves." As such, vendors were required to provide means for users to re-configure or disable secure boot (although devices running Windows RT, a variation of Windows 8 for ARM architecture, have locked firmware where this cannot be disabled). No mandate is made regarding the installation of third-party certificates that would enable running alternative programs.

Copyright enforcement

When Microsoft discovered that its first product, Altair BASIC, was subject to widespread unauthorized copying, Microsoft founder Bill Gates wrote an Open Letter to Hobbyists that openly accused many hobbyists of stealing software. Gates' letter provoked many responses, with some hobbyists objecting to the broad accusation, and others supporting the principle of compensation. This disagreement over whether software should be proprietary continues into the present day under the banner of the free software movement, with Microsoft characterizing free software released under the terms of the GPL as being "potentially viral" and the GNU General Public License itself as a "viral license" which "infects" proprietary software and forces its developer to have to release proprietary source to the public.

The Halloween documents, internal Microsoft memos which were leaked to the open source community beginning in 1998, indicate that some Microsoft employees perceive "open source" software — in particular, Linux — as a growing long-term threat to Microsoft's position in the software industry. The Halloween documents acknowledged that parts of Linux are superior to the versions of Microsoft Windows available at the time, and outlined a strategy of "de-commoditize protocols & applications." Microsoft stated in its 2006 Annual Report that it was a defendant in at least 35 patent infringement lawsuits. The company's litigation expenses for April 2004 through March 2007 exceed $4.3 billion: over $4 billion in payouts, plus $300 million in legal fees.

Another concern of critics is that Microsoft may be using the distribution of shared source software to harvest names of developers who have been exposed to Microsoft code, as some believe that these developers could someday be the target of lawsuits if they were ever to participate in the development of competing products. This issue is addressed in published papers from several organizations including the American Bar Association and the Open Source Initiative.

Starting in the 1990s, Microsoft was accused of maintaining "hidden" or "secret" APIs: interfaces to its operating system software that it deliberately keeps undocumented to gain a competitive advantage in its application software products. Microsoft employees have consistently denied this; they claim that application developers inside and outside Microsoft routinely reverse-engineered DOS and 16-bit versions of Windows without any inside help, creating legacy support problems that far exceeded any alleged benefit to Microsoft. In response to court orders, Microsoft has published interfaces between components of its operating system software, including components like Internet Explorer, Active Directory, and Windows Media that sell as part of Windows but compete with application software.

On October 10, 2018, Microsoft joined the Open Invention Network community despite holding more than 60,000 patents.

Mono patent concerns

Further information: Software patents and free software

On July 6, 2009, Microsoft announced that it was placing their ECMA 334 and ECMA 335 specifications under their Community Promise pledging that they would not assert their patents against anyone implementing, distributing, or using alternative implementations of .NET. Mono's implementation of those components of the .NET stack not submitted to the ECMA for standardization has been the source of patent violation concerns for much of the life of the project. In particular, discussion has taken place about whether Microsoft could destroy the Mono project through patent suits.

The base technologies submitted to the ECMA, and therefore also the Unix/GNOME-specific parts, are claimed to be safe due to Microsoft's explicitly placing both ECMA 334 (C#) and ECMA 335 (CLI) standards under the Microsoft Community Promise. The concerns primarily relate to technologies developed by Microsoft on top of the .NET Framework, such as ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Forms (see non-standardized namespaces), i.e. parts composing Mono's Windows compatibility stack. These technologies are today not fully implemented in Mono and not required for developing Mono-applications, they are simply there for developers and users who need full compatibility with the Windows system.

In June 2009 the Ubuntu Technical Board stated that it saw "no reason to exclude Mono or applications based upon it from the archive, or from the default installation set."

The Free Software Foundation's Richard Stallman has stated on June 2, 2009, that " we should discourage people from writing programs in C#. Therefore, we should not include C# implementations in the default installation of GNU/Linux distributions or in their principal ways of installing GNOME". On July 1, 2009, Brett Smith (also from the FSF) stated that "Microsoft's patents are much more dangerous: it's the only major software company that has declared itself the enemy of GNU/Linux and stated its intention to attack our community with patents.", "C# represents a unique threat to us" and "The Community Promise does nothing to change any of this".

Fedora Project Leader Paul Frields has stated, "We do have some serious concerns about Mono and we'll continue to look at it with our legal counsel to see what if any steps are needed on our part", yet "We haven't come to a legal conclusion that is pat enough for us to make the decision to take mono out".

In November 2011 at an Ubuntu Developer Summit, developers voted to have the Mono-based Banshee media player removed from Ubuntu's default installation beginning on Ubuntu 12.04; although reported reasonings included performance issues on ARM architecture, blocking issues on its GTK+ 3 version, and it being, in their opinion, "not well maintained", speculation also surfaced that the decision was also influenced by a desire to remove Mono from the base distribution, as the remaining programs dependent on Mono, gbrainy and Tomboy, were also to be removed. Mono developer Joseph Michael Shields defended the performance of Banshee on ARM, and also the claims that Banshee was not well-maintained as being a "directed personal insult" to one of its major contributors.

Ignoring unauthorized copying

Microsoft ignored unauthorized copying of its own software for their benefit on the long term. While talking about users in China who do not pay for the software they use in 2006, to an audience at the University of Washington, Bill Gates said "And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."

The practice allowed Microsoft to gain some dominance over the Chinese market and only then taking measures against unauthorized copies. In 2008, by means of the Windows update mechanism, a verification program called "Windows Genuine Advantage" (WGA) was downloaded and installed. When WGA detects that the copy of Windows is not genuine, it periodically turns the user's screen black. This behavior angered users and generated complaints in China with a lawyer stating that "Microsoft uses its monopoly to bundle its updates with the validation programs and forces its users to verify the genuineness of their software".

Licensing agreements

Main article: Bundling of Microsoft Windows

A common complaint comes from those who want to purchase a computer that usually comes preinstalled with Windows without a copy of Windows pre-installed and without paying extra for the license either so that another operating system can be used or because a license was already acquired elsewhere, such as through the MSDN Academic Alliance program. Microsoft encourages original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to supply computers with Windows pre-installed by presenting their dominance in computer sales and arguing that consumers benefit by not having to install an operating system. Because the price of the license varies depending on discounts given to the OEM and because there is no similar computer that the OEM offers without Windows, there is no immediate way to find the size of the refund. In 2009, Microsoft stated that it has always charged OEMs about $50 for a Windows license on a $1,000 computer.

While it is possible to obtain a computer with no or free operating systems, virtually all large computer vendors continue to bundle Microsoft Windows with the majority of the personal computers in their ranges. The claimed increase in the price of a computer resulting from the inclusion of a Windows license has been called the "Windows tax" or "Microsoft tax" by opposing computer users. The Findings of Fact in the United States Microsoft antitrust case of 1998 established that "One of the ways Microsoft combats piracy is by advising OEMs that they will be charged a higher price for Windows unless they drastically limit the number of PCs that they sell without an operating system pre-installed. In 1998, all major OEMs agreed to this restriction." Microsoft also once assessed license fees based on the number of computers an OEM sold, regardless of whether a Windows license was included; Microsoft was forced to end this practice due to a consent decree. In 2010, Microsoft stated that its agreements with OEMs to distribute Windows are nonexclusive, and OEMs are free to distribute computers with a different operating system or without any operating system.

Microsoft does not provide refunds for Windows licenses sold through an OEM, including licenses that come with the purchase of a computer or are pre-installed on a computer.

According to Microsoft's End-user license agreement for Windows 7 the ability to receive a refund for the operating system is determined by the hardware manufacturer:

By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, contact the manufacturer or installer to determine its return policy. You must comply with that policy, which might limit your rights or require you to return the entire system on which the software is installed.

— Microsoft Software License Terms: Windows 7 Professional

Acer Inc. has a policy of requiring the customer to return items at their own expense, and the balance received by the customer can be as low as €30. In other cases, vendors have asked that customers requesting refunds sign non-disclosure agreements. Older versions of Microsoft Windows had different license terms with respect to the availability of a refund for Windows:

By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, contact the manufacturer or installer to determine their return policy for a refund or credit.

— Microsoft software license terms for Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium and Ultimate versions

Based on the updated language, vendors refused to issue partial refunds for Windows licenses, requiring that the computer be returned altogether. In some countries, this practice has been ruled a violation of consumer protection law.

Additionally, the EULA for Windows Vista was criticized for being too restrictive.

Litigation

Main article: Microsoft litigation

Microsoft's market dominance and business practices have attracted widespread resentment, which is not necessarily restricted to the company's competitors. In a 2003 publication, Dan Geer argued the prevalence of Microsoft products has resulted in a monoculture which is dangerously easy for viruses to exploit.

On June 25, 2024, the European Commission accused Microsoft of violating the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by bundling Microsoft Teams with Microsoft 365 and Microsoft Office.

Labor practices

The entrance to Microsoft Redmond campus in Redmond, Washington

Microsoft has been criticized for the use of permatemp employees (employees employed for years as "temporary," and therefore without medical benefits), use of forced retention tactics, where departing employees would be sued to prevent departure, as well as more traditional cost-saving measures, ranging from cutting medical benefits to not providing towels in company locker rooms.

Historically, Microsoft has also been accused of overworking employees, in many cases, leading to burnout within just a few years of joining the company. The company is often referred to as a "Velvet Sweatshop", a term which originated in a 1989 Seattle Times article, and later became used to describe the company by some of Microsoft's own employees. This characterization is derived from the perception that Microsoft provides nearly everything for its employees in a convenient place, but in turn overworks them to a point where it would be bad for their (possibly long-term) health. For example, the kitchenettes have free beverages and many buildings include exercise rooms and showers. However, the company has been accused of attempting to keep employees at the company for exceptionally long hours. This is detailed in several books about Microsoft, including Hard Drive: Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire.

A US state lawsuit was brought against Microsoft in 1992 representing 8,558 current and former employees that had been classified as "temporary" and "freelance", and became known as Vizcaino v. Microsoft. In 1993, the suit became a US Federal Class Action in the United States District Court Western District Of Washington at Seattle as No. C93-178C. The Final Settlement came in 2005. The case was decided on the (IRS-defined) basis that such "permatemps" had their jobs defined by Microsoft, worked alongside regular employees doing the same work, and worked for long terms. After a series of court setbacks including three reversals on appeal, Microsoft settled the suit for US$97 million.

A side effect of the "permatemp" lawsuit is that now contract employees are prevented from participating in team morale events and other activities that could be construed as making them "employees". They are also limited to 18-month contracts and must leave after that time for 6 months before returning under contract.

Microsoft is the largest American corporate user of H-1B guest worker visas and has joined other large technology companies like Google in recently lobbying for looser H-1B visa restrictions.

Jesse Jackson believes Microsoft should hire more minorities and women. Jackson has urged other companies to diversify their workforce. He believes that Microsoft made some progress when it appointed two women to its board of directors in 2015.

Advertising and public relations

Critics have alleged that Microsoft has used funding to drum up support from think tanks and trade organizations such as the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI), the Independent Institute, and Americans for Technology Leadership (ATL). During the antitrust case United States v. Microsoft, ATL sent a poll to 19 state attorneys general purporting to show that "the public believes state AGs should devote their energy to causes other than Microsoft". Also during the case the Independent Institute ran full-page advertisements in The New York Times and The Washington Post defending Microsoft, which was later revealed to have funded the ad campaign. The institute published Winners, Losers, and Microsoft: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology shortly thereafter.

In June 2002, the AdTI published a report, quickly pulled under the argument that it was a draft version, which contained criticism of the copyleft model and the GNU General Public License. A May 2002 press release for the report stated that it would contain arguments suggesting that governments could be threatened by hackers and terrorists (who could study potential vulnerabilities due to source availability) if it used open source software. However, the draft contained no references to these topics. Open Source Initiative (OSI) founder Bruce Perens felt that the report had "Microsoft's paws all over ". Microsoft argued that its funding was for AdTI's operations as a whole, and not relevant to any specific research by the organization.

"Champagne", a 2002 British television advert for the Xbox, received 136 complaints from viewers to the Independent Television Commission (ITC) over its content. The advert featured a newborn baby being launched out of its mother—aging as it flies through the air, and crashing into a gravestone. It contained the tagline "Life is short, play more." The advert was banned from television by the ITC, who considered it to be "offensive, shocking and in bad taste", noting complaints citing the advert's themes of death and the "traumatic experience" the person was facing in the ad.

In August 2004, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ordered Microsoft to pull ads in Britain that claimed that the total cost of ownership of Linux servers was ten times that of Windows Server 2003. The comparison included the cost of hardware, and put Linux at a disadvantage by installing it on more expensive but poorer-performing hardware compared to that used for Windows.

On January 22, 2007, Rick Jelliffe made a claim on his blog that a Microsoft employee offered to pay him to make corrections in English Misplaced Pages articles concerning Office Open XML. Microsoft spokesperson Catherine Brooker expressed the belief that the article had been "heavily written" by IBM employees who supported the rival OpenDocument format, though she provided no specific evidence. Internet entrepreneur and Wikimedia Foundation founder Jimmy Wales described Microsoft's offer as unethical.

In 2009, it was found that a photo on the Polish version of Microsoft's business productivity website—which depicted three people of various races during an office meeting—had been edited to replace the head of an African-American man with that of a Caucasian, whilst also failing to edit the person's hand to match the different skin color. Microsoft apologized and quickly removed the image.

In 2011, Moneylife.in alleged that two "anonymous comments boosting their product"—one by a Nokia employee and another by a Microsoft employee—were posted on their review of Nokia Lumia 800, which was based only on the "technical specifications" and the reviewer "hadn't laid a finger on the phone". In conclusion, Charles Arthur argued "Nobody has come out of the episode looking good. Sapkale was accused of breaking his own site's privacy policy by posting the IP and email addresses of the commenters, while the commenting duo's failure to declare any interest looked, at best, like astroturfing."

In 2014 details on a partnership between Machinima.com and Microsoft came to light regarding a marketing campaign for Xbox One. Machinima would offer some of its users $3 per thousand views if the user showed 30 seconds of an Xbox One game and mentioned the system by name. Controversy arose when it was reported that, under the terms of the promotion, participants were not allowed to disclose that they were being paid for said endorsements, which Ars Technica said conflicted with FTC regulations requiring recipients to fully disclose when such actions occur. Machinima stated that the confidentiality clause only applied to the terms of the agreement, and not to the existence of the agreement, and Microsoft ended the promotion and directed Machinima to add disclosures to the videos involved. In September 2015, Machinima settled with the FTC over charges that the ad campaign failed to comply with FTC endorsement guidelines; the FTC decided not to take action against Microsoft since it already has "policies and procedures designed to prevent such lapses".

Since the 2010s, Microsoft has faced criticism for using adware-like tactics to market recent software and services. Microsoft faced criticism over its marketing and distribution of no-cost Windows 10 upgrades for Windows 7 and 8 users, which included a "Get Windows 10" application automatically downloaded via Windows Update that displayed popups advertising the offer, use of dark patterns to coax users into installing the operating system, downloading installation files without user consent, and making it difficult for users to suppress the advertising and notifications if they did not wish to upgrade to Windows 10. Microsoft has used advertising embedded in the Microsoft Bing search engine and Microsoft Edge web browser to discourage the use of competing web browser Google Chrome (which shares the same engine as Bing), including displaying prominent ads on specific search terms, and programming Edge to inject on-screen notifications and banner advertising when browsing Chrome's web site. In 2023 and 2024, Microsoft began using notifications to encourage Chrome users to switch to Microsoft Bing and Microsoft Copilot.

Tax avoidance

As reported by several news outlets, an Irish subsidiary of Microsoft based in the Republic of Ireland declared £220 bn in profits but paid no corporation tax for the year 2020. This is due to the company being tax resident in Bermuda as mentioned in the accounts for 'Microsoft Round Island One', a subsidiary that collects licence fees from the use of Microsoft software worldwide. Dame Margaret Hodge, a Labour MP in the UK said, "It is unsurprising – yet still shocking – that massively wealthy global corporations openly, unashamedly and blatantly refuse to pay tax on the profits they make in the countries where they undertake business".

In 2020, ProPublica reported that the company had diverted more than $39 billion in U.S. profits to Puerto Rico using a mechanism structured to make it seem as if the company was unprofitable on paper. As a result, the company paid a tax rate on those profits of "nearly 0%." When the Internal Revenue Service audited these transactions, ProPublica reported that Microsoft aggressively fought back, including successfully lobbying Congress to change the law to make it harder for the agency to conduct audits of large corporations.

Blacklisting of journalists

John C. Dvorak said that in the 1980s, Microsoft classified journalists as "Okay", "Sketchy", or "Needs work" and targeted "Needs work" journalists in an attempt to have them terminated. Dvorak said that he was denied information about Windows because he was on a blacklist. Mary Jo Foley stated that she was denied interviews with Microsoft personnel for several years following the publication of a story based on a memo describing the number of bugs in Windows 2000 at release.

Censorship in China

Microsoft (along with Google, Yahoo, Cisco, AOL, Skype, and other companies) has cooperated with the Chinese government in implementing a system of Internet censorship. Human rights advocates such as Human Rights Watch and media groups such as Reporters Without Borders criticized the companies, noting for example that it is "ironic that companies whose existence depends on freedom of information and expression have taken on the role of censor." Since 2009, Microsoft has run a local version of Bing in China that censors thousands of websites and phrases such as "human rights" and "Communist Party corruption".

Bing censorship of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre

See also: Chinese censorship abroad

On June 4, 2021, the 32nd anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, searches for the Tank Man image and videos were censored by Microsoft Bing search engine worldwide. Hours after Microsoft acknowledged the issue, the search returned only pictures of tanks elsewhere in the world. Search engines that license results from Microsoft such as DuckDuckGo and Yahoo faced similar issues. Microsoft said the issue was "due to an accidental human error."

The director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, said he found the idea it was an inadvertent error "hard to believe". David Greene, Civil Liberties Director at Electronic Frontier Foundation, said that content moderation was impossible to do perfectly and "egregious mistakes are made all the time", but he further elaborated that "At worst, this was purposeful suppression at the request of a powerful state."

Privacy issues

Collaboration with the NSA on internet surveillance

See also: _NSAKEY

Microsoft was the first company to participate in the PRISM surveillance program, according to leaked NSA documents obtained by The Guardian and The Washington Post in June 2013, and acknowledged by government officials following the leak. The program authorizes the government to secretly access data of non-US citizens hosted by American companies without a warrant. Microsoft has denied participation in such a program.

In July 2013, The Guardian elaborated that leaked documents show that:

  • Microsoft helped the NSA to circumvent its encryption to intercept web chats on Outlook.com and gave it unencrypted access to Outlook.com and Hotmail email.
  • Microsoft provided the NSA with access to users' data on its cloud storage service OneDrive (formerly SkyDrive).
  • After Microsoft bought Skype, the NSA tripled the number of Skype video calls being collected through PRISM.

In a statement, Microsoft said that they "provide customer data only in response to legal processes."

Telemetry and data collection

Windows 10 was criticized on-launch for having default settings that send various information regarding user behaviors to Microsoft and its "trusted partners", such as data regarding user contacts and calendar events, location data and history, "telemetry" (diagnostics data); this could not be fully disabled on non-enterprise versions of Windows 10), an "advertising ID", as well as further data when the Cortana assistant is enabled in full.

Microsoft faced criticism from France's data protection commission and the European Union for its practices in regards to Windows 10. On subsequent iterations of the OS, Microsoft has clarified its data collection policies, and made its out-of-box experience provide clearer information on Windows privacy settings, and the effects they have on the overall user experience. Microsoft also simplified its "telemetry" options to only consist of "Basic" and "Full" modes, and reduced the amount of system information collected in "Basic" mode.

In November 2018, the Dutch government issued a report stating that telemetry implementations in Office 365 violated the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In July 2019 the company tasked with investigating the privacy risks reported that Microsoft had adequately addressed these issues in Office 365 ProPlus, while the other concerns still remained.

Robot journalism

In May 2020, Microsoft announced that a number of its MSN contract journalists would be replaced by robot journalism leading to criticism about which stories would be displayed and their quality.

Xbox live controversies

Xbox Live prohibition on use of the word "gay"

Microsoft has come under some criticism for its attitude to homosexuality and Xbox Live. Users may not use the string "gay" in a gamertag (even in a non-homosexual context, for example as part of a surname), or refer to homosexuality in their profile (including self-identifying as such), as the company considers this "content of a sexual nature" or "offensive" to other users and therefore unsuitable for the service. After banning 'Teresa', a lesbian gamer who had been harassed by other users for being a homosexual, a senior Xbox Live team member, Stephen Toulouse, has clarified the policy, stating that "Expression of any sexual orientation is not allowed in gamertags" but that they are "examining how we can provide it in a way that won't get misused". GLAAD weighed in on the controversy as well, supporting the steps that Microsoft has taken over the years to engage the LGBT community.

2021 Xbox Live subscription price increase

On January 22, 2021, Microsoft announced that the pricing model for Xbox Live subscriptions would be increasing across each price tier, with a year of the service doubling from US$60 to US$120 for users. The move was met with widespread criticism from users and news media, with speculation that the change was meant to make the Xbox Game Pass subscription more enticing. In response to the backlash, on the same day that the price increase was announced, Microsoft reversed the decision to increase the price of Xbox Live.

ANS patent controversy

Asymmetric numeral systems is widely used family of method in data compression, whose author gave it to public domain - wanting to be unrestricted by the patent system, also successfully defending from patent by Google. In June 2019 Microsoft lodged a patent application called 'Features of range asymmetric number system encoding and decoding'. The USPTO issued a final rejection of the application on October 27, 2020. Yet on March 2, 2021, Microsoft gave a USPTO explanatory filing stating "The Applicant respectfully disagrees with the rejections, seeking to overturn the final rejection under the "After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0" program. The application is currently still pending, as USPTO has not confirmed if it will allow the rejection appeal to proceed.

Xinjiang region

Further information: Persecution of Uyghurs in China

In 2020, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute accused at least 82 major brands of being connected to forced Uyghur labor in Xinjiang. Microsoft is reported as being supplied by three Chinese factories employing Uyghur and Xinjiang workers. In 2024, a Microsoft incubator was reported to have provided support to two Chinese companies that sell software used for censorship in China.

See also

Criticism of other software companies:


General mechanisms at work:

References

  1. "Microsoft A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm" (PDF). European Committee for Interoperable Systems. March 31, 2009. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 18, 2009. Retrieved May 25, 2009.
  2. Orlowski, Andrew (April 25, 2003). "Writing history with Microsoft's Office lock-in". The Register. Archived from the original on May 17, 2019. Retrieved May 17, 2019.
  3. Orzech, Dan (April 29, 2009). "Linux TCO: Less Than Half The Cost of Windows". CIO Updates. Archived from the original on February 8, 2015. Retrieved January 29, 2015.
  4. "EU fines Microsoft record 899 million euros". Reuters. Archived from the original on August 31, 2019. Retrieved August 31, 2019.
  5. Vera, Amir (September 14, 2019). "76 anti-ICE protesters arrested during New York sit-in". CNN. Archived from the original on September 20, 2019. Retrieved September 19, 2019.
  6. "'Abolish ICE' protesters face off with police in midtown [VIDEO]". MSN. Archived from the original on September 15, 2019. Retrieved September 19, 2019.
  7. NYC, Close the Camps (September 14, 2019). "RELEASE — PROTESTORS DEMAND MICROSOFT STOP PROFITEERING FROM CONCENTRATION CAMPS, IMMIGRANT RAIDS AND DEPORTATIONS". Medium. Archived from the original on September 18, 2019. Retrieved September 19, 2019.
  8. ^ "76 anti-ICE protesters arrested at Microsoft Store in Manhattan". Windows Central. September 16, 2019. Archived from the original on September 18, 2019. Retrieved September 19, 2019.
  9. ^ "Federal agencies continue to advance capabilities with Azure Government". Azure Government. January 24, 2018. Archived from the original on September 19, 2019. Retrieved September 19, 2019.
  10. Wong, Julia Carrie (February 22, 2019). "'We won't be war profiteers': Microsoft workers protest $480m army contract". The Guardian. Archived from the original on February 23, 2019. Retrieved February 25, 2019.
  11. ^ Rodger, Will (November 8, 1998). "Intel exec: MS wanted to 'extend, embrace and extinguish' competition". ZDNet. Archived from the original on December 11, 2006. Retrieved February 5, 2007.
  12. ^ Alepin, Ronald (January 8, 2007). "Expert Testimony of Ronald Alepin in Comes v. Microsoft – Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Groklaw. Archived from the original on May 17, 2019. Retrieved May 17, 2019.
  13. ^ Erickson, Jonathan (August 1, 2000). "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish: Three Strikes And You're Out". Dr. Dobb's Portal. Archived from the original on December 12, 2013. Retrieved May 17, 2019.
  14. ^ Livingston, Brian (May 15, 2000). "Is Microsoft's change in Kerberos security a form of 'embrace, extend, extinguish'?". InfoWorld. Archived from the original on January 28, 2007. Retrieved February 5, 2007.
  15. "EU report takes Microsoft to task". Archived from the original on June 16, 2011. Retrieved June 6, 2006.
  16. Jones, Pamela (February 17, 2008). "How to Get Your Platform Accepted as a Standard – Microsoft Style". Groklaw News. Archived from the original on May 13, 2019. Retrieved May 17, 2019.
  17. Mangefeste, Tony (September 22, 2011). "Protecting the pre-OS environment with UEFI". Building Windows 8. Archived from the original on August 2, 2012. Retrieved October 17, 2011.
  18. Noyes, Katherine (January 18, 2012). "Windows 8 Secure Boot: The Controversy Continues". PC World. Archived from the original on October 5, 2012. Retrieved August 3, 2012.
  19. Warren, Tom (January 16, 2012). "Windows 8 ARM devices won't have the option to switch off Secure Boot". The Verge. Archived from the original on March 13, 2012. Retrieved August 3, 2012.
  20. Garling, Caleb (September 23, 2011). "Windows 8 Secure Boot Sparks Linux Furor, and a Microsoft Response". Wired. Archived from the original on July 25, 2012. Retrieved August 3, 2012.
  21. Brodkin, Jon (January 16, 2012). "Microsoft mandating Secure Boot on ARM, making Linux installs difficult". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on April 9, 2012. Retrieved August 3, 2012.
  22. Moody, Glyn (January 12, 2012). "Is Microsoft Blocking Linux Booting on ARM Hardware?". Computerworld. Archived from the original on April 5, 2016. Retrieved May 28, 2019.
  23. "Why Microsoft should lift the possible ban on Linux booting on Windows 8 ARM devices". Computerworld. January 13, 2012. Archived from the original on May 18, 2012. Retrieved January 27, 2012.
  24. Niccolai, James (January 13, 2012). "Windows 8 on ARM: You can look but you can't touch". Computerworld. Archived from the original on January 31, 2012. Retrieved January 27, 2012.
  25. Gates, Bill (April 1976). "A Second and Final Letter". Computer Notes. Archived from the original on March 23, 2012. Retrieved March 23, 2012.
  26. "Open source terror stalks Microsoft's lawyers". The Register. Archived from the original on October 3, 2012. Retrieved August 10, 2017.
  27. Albert, Phil (June 8, 2004). "The EULA, the GPL and the Wisdom of Fortune Cookies". LinuxInsider. Archived from the original on May 17, 2019. Retrieved May 17, 2019.
  28. Raymond, Eric S. "Halloween Document 8". catb.org. Archived from the original on October 6, 2017.
  29. "MSFT Annual Report 2006". Microsoft. Archived from the original on February 14, 2009. Retrieved January 30, 2019.
  30. "Windows vs. Linux: The Patent Tax". April 16, 2007. Archived from the original on July 15, 2019. Retrieved May 17, 2019.
  31. "Open Source Software – A Legal Framework" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 16, 2009. Retrieved June 23, 2009.
  32. "Shared Source: A Dangerous Virus". Archived from the original on September 24, 2006.
  33. Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union (January 25, 2005). "Competitive Processes, Anticompetitive Practices and Consumer Harm in the Software Industry" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 25, 2008. Retrieved April 13, 2008. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) (public comment on US v. Microsoft under the Tunney Act)
  34. Henderson, Ken (2003). The Guru's Guide to SQL Server Architecture and Internals. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-70047-6. Archived from the original on May 5, 2010. Retrieved November 21, 2006. Contrary to what some people believed at the time, SQL Server 6.5 made no use of hidden APIs to reach the scalability levels it achieved.
  35. Pratley, Chris (April 28, 2004). "Word Myths and Feedback". Chris Pratley's OneNote Blog. Archived from the original on December 17, 2006. Retrieved November 21, 2006. I also detected another old saw about hidden advantages or undocumented APIs that somehow made Word better than competing apps. The reality on this is so counter to the conspiracy it is astounding. The Office team barely talks to the Windows team.
  36. Chen, Raymond. "What about BOZOSLIVEHERE and TABTHETEXTOUTFORWIMPS?". The Old New Thing. Archived from the original on March 16, 2010. Retrieved September 18, 2007.
  37. Spolsky, Joel (June 13, 2004). "How Microsoft Lost the API War". Archived from the original on April 26, 2009. Retrieved June 1, 2012.
  38. Speed, Richard (October 10, 2018). "Microsoft has signed up to the Open Invention Network. We repeat. Microsoft has signed up to the OIN". The Register. Archived from the original on October 11, 2018. Retrieved May 17, 2019.
  39. "The ECMA C# and CLI Standards". Port 25. July 6, 2009. Archived from the original on May 23, 2013. Retrieved July 7, 2009. Under the Community Promise, Microsoft provides assurance that it will not assert its Necessary Claims against anyone who makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, or distributes any Covered Implementation under any type of development or distribution model, including open-source licensing models such as the LGPL or GPL.
  40. Babcock, Charles (August 7, 2001). "Will open source get snagged in .Net?". ZDNet Asia.
  41. Smith, Brett (July 16, 2009). "Microsoft's Empty Promise". fsf.org.
  42. "Mono Position Statement". Canonical Ltd. June 30, 2009. It is common practice in the software industry to register patents as protection against litigation, rather than as an intent to litigate. Thus mere existence of a patent, without a claim of infringement, is not sufficient reason to warrant exclusion from the Ubuntu Project.
  43. "Why free software shouldn't depend on Mono or C#".
  44. "Microsoft's Empty Promise".
  45. "Fedora is concerned about Mono". internetnews.com. June 12, 2009. Archived from the original on June 19, 2009. Retrieved July 4, 2010. We haven't come to a legal conclusion that is pat enough for us to make the decision to take mono out
  46. "'Bansheegeddon' may see Banshee, Mono dropped from Ubuntu default". ITWorld. Archived from the original on July 10, 2015. Retrieved August 31, 2015.
  47. "How Piracy Opens Doors for Windows?". Los Angeles Times. April 9, 2006. Archived from the original on August 4, 2019.
  48. "Chinese netizens slam Microsoft's anti-piracy policy". France 24. October 28, 2008. Archived from the original on July 1, 2020.
  49. "Microsoft not playing fair". China Daily. October 28, 2008. Archived from the original on February 15, 2020.
  50. "Buying without Windows-Don't want Windows?". Best Price Computers Ltd. February 2007. Archived from the original on March 18, 2012.
  51. "Call on students". September 27, 2009. Archived from the original on July 22, 2011. Retrieved December 30, 2012.
  52. "MS: it's (nearly) illegal to buy PCs without Windows". The Register. November 28, 2000. Archived from the original on August 10, 2017. Retrieved August 10, 2017.
  53. "Microsoft's Dirty OEM-Secret". October 23, 2001. Archived from the original on July 13, 2009. Retrieved January 4, 2010.
  54. ^ Protalinski, Emil (January 7, 2010). "Italian class-action suit targets unwanted Windows installs". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on December 2, 2012. Retrieved December 28, 2012. 'However, consumers benefit from the preinstallation of Windows on PCs. It provides the best user experience from the time a consumer first turns on the PC and saves consumers the substantial effort and resources associated with having to install an operating system that functions properly' ... 'Computer manufacturers are free to sell PCs pre-installed with another operating system or no operating system at all,' the spokesperson continued. 'It's also important to note that Microsoft's agreements with OEMs are nonexclusive.'
  55. Protalinski, Emil (September 16, 2009). "OEMs pay Microsoft about $50 for each copy of Windows". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on December 2, 2012. Retrieved December 28, 2012.
  56. "Microsoft official "valued customer" statement". Archived from the original on July 23, 2012. Retrieved December 30, 2012.
  57. ^ Jeremy Reimer (May 25, 2007). "Dell goes Ubuntu; "Windows tax" is $50 according to pricing". Archived from the original on January 22, 2009. Retrieved June 14, 2017.
  58. Charlie Demerjian (March 3, 2007). "Cost of Windows tax calculated". Archived from the original on January 9, 2009.
  59. "U.S. v. Microsoft: Court's Findings of Fact". Archived from the original on August 11, 2011. Retrieved December 30, 2012.
  60. "Microsoft North American Retail Product Refund Guidelines". Microsoft. Archived from the original on September 6, 2012. Retrieved August 27, 2012.
  61. "Microsoft Software License Terms: Windows 7 Professional" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on March 11, 2012. Retrieved December 30, 2012.
  62. "Man wins damages from Acer over Voleware refund". September 22, 2007. Archived from the original on April 6, 2009.
  63. Gijs Hillenius (October 1, 2008). "CZ: Lenovo fails to silence GNU/Linux user on Windows refund". Archived from the original on July 20, 2011. Retrieved December 30, 2012.
  64. Niv Lillian (December 3, 2008). "Dell customer awarded Windows refund". Ynetnews. Archived from the original on October 16, 2012. Retrieved December 30, 2012.
  65. "Microsoft software license terms for Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium and Ultimate versions" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on February 15, 2012. Retrieved December 30, 2012.
  66. "Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre civile 1, 15 novembre 2010, 09–11.161, Publié au bulletin". November 15, 2010. Archived from the original on October 4, 2012. Retrieved December 30, 2012.
  67. "DIRECTIVE 2005/29/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL". May 11, 2005. Archived from the original on December 24, 2012. Retrieved December 30, 2012.
  68. Granneman, Scott (October 27, 2006). "Surprises Inside Microsoft Vista's EULA". Symantec. Archived from the original on May 17, 2019. Retrieved May 17, 2019.
  69. "Cyberinsecurity: The Cost of Monopoly" (PDF). September 24, 2003. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 25, 2009.
  70. Keenan, Alexis (June 25, 2024). "EU keeps flexing its antitrust muscles with US tech giants". yahoo!Finance. Retrieved June 25, 2024.
  71. "Troubling Exits At Microsoft". Archived from the original on May 2, 2007.
  72. Andrews, Paul (April 23, 1989). "A 'Velvet Sweatshop' or a High-Tech Heaven?". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on June 29, 2012.
  73. "Editor's note, MSJ August 1997". Microsoft. Archived from the original on February 14, 2007. Retrieved September 27, 2005.
  74. Bendich, Stobaugh and Strong P.C. (June 18, 2007). "Microsoft "Permatemps" Case". Retrieved October 14, 2009.
  75. Allison, Kevin (March 7, 2007). "Gates warns on US immigration curbs". Financial Times. Archived from the original on June 16, 2007. Retrieved June 9, 2007.
  76. "Senators: Companies with "mass layoffs" shouldn't hire more foreign workers". June 7, 2007. Archived from the original on December 6, 2008. Retrieved June 14, 2017.
  77. Gates, Bill (February 25, 2007). "How to Keep America Competitive". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on December 14, 2017. Retrieved August 22, 2017.
  78. Gross, Ashley. "Rev. Jesse Jackson Praises Microsoft's Diversity Efforts, But Urges The Company To Do More". Archived from the original on December 8, 2015. Retrieved December 3, 2015.
  79. Carney, Dan (May 15, 2000). "Microsoft's All-Out Counterattack". Business Week. Archived from the original on January 18, 2011. Retrieved November 8, 2012.
  80. Brinkley, Joel (September 18, 1999). "Microsoft Covered Cost of Ads Backing It in Antitrust Suit". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 22, 2013. Retrieved November 8, 2012.
  81. Liebowitz, Stan J.; Margolis, Stephen E. (1999). Winners, Losers, and Microsoft: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology. Independent Institute. pp. 344. ISBN 978-0-94599-980-5.
  82. ^ Manjoo, Farhad (June 11, 2002). "Report Flays Open-Source Licenses". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Archived from the original on December 11, 2019. Retrieved May 30, 2019.
  83. Lemos, Robert. "Linux makes a run for government". CNET. Archived from the original on May 30, 2019. Retrieved May 30, 2019.
  84. Milmo, Cahal (June 6, 2002). "Xbox's advert pulled after protest from TV watchdog". The Independent. Archived from the original on April 25, 2017. Retrieved April 24, 2017.
  85. "15 years on: The story behind one of Xbox's most notorious TV ads". GamesIndustry.biz. December 6, 2016. Archived from the original on May 30, 2019. Retrieved May 30, 2019.
  86. "Non-broadcast Adjudication". Advertising Standards Authority. Archived from the original on January 29, 2006. Retrieved March 31, 2006.
  87. Kuchinskas, Susan (August 26, 2004). "Microsoft Ordered to Pull Anti-Linux Ad". IT Business Edge. Archived from the original on November 26, 2005. Retrieved March 31, 2006.
  88. Rick Jelliffe (January 22, 2007). "An interesting offer: get paid to contribute to Misplaced Pages". Archived from the original on November 3, 2013. Retrieved January 29, 2015.
  89. Brian Bergstein (January 23, 2007). "Microsoft offers cash for Misplaced Pages edit". NBC News. Archived from the original on December 5, 2013. Retrieved May 25, 2009.
  90. "Microsoft in web photo racism row". BBC News. August 26, 2009. Archived from the original on May 28, 2019. Retrieved May 28, 2019.
  91. Johnson, Bobbie; Francisco, San (August 26, 2009). "Microsoft apologises over race-swap gaffe". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on May 28, 2019. Retrieved May 28, 2019.
  92. ^ Arthur, Charles (October 18, 2011). "Nokia and Microsoft fingered over comments on adverse Lumia review". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on February 4, 2014. Retrieved January 14, 2012.
  93. ^ Orland, Kyle (January 20, 2014). "Stealth marketing: Microsoft paying YouTubers for Xbox One mentions". arstechnicha. Archived from the original on January 20, 2014. Retrieved January 21, 2014.
  94. Orland, Kyle (September 2, 2015). "Machinima settles with FTC over "deceptive" Xbox promotion". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on September 4, 2015. Retrieved September 4, 2015.
  95. Williams, Chris. "Microsoft pushes Bing, GPT-4 in Chrome pop-up adverts". The Register. Retrieved March 19, 2024.
  96. ^ Keizer, Gregg (September 15, 2015). "Microsoft's decision to pre-load Windows 10 upgrade sans consent is ill-advised". Computerworld. IDG. Retrieved May 14, 2019.
  97. ^ Leonhard, Woody (May 15, 2015). "Microsoft re-re-re-issues controversial Windows 10 patch KB 3035583". Computerworld. IDG. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  98. ^ Leonhard, Woody (February 24, 2016). "Get Windows 10 patch KB 3035583 suddenly reappears on Win7/8.1 PCs". Computerworld. IDG. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  99. Leonhard, Woody (December 15, 2015). "Microsoft narrows Win10 upgrade options to 'Upgrade now' or 'Upgrade tonight'". Computerworld. IDG. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  100. Bright, Peter (October 16, 2015). "Windows 10 upgrade installing automatically on some Windows 7, 8 systems". Ars Technica. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  101. ^ Newman, Jared (September 11, 2015). "Didn't ask for Windows 10? Your PC may have downloaded it anyway". PC World. Retrieved May 14, 2019.
  102. Leonhard, Woody (January 8, 2016). "Banishing 'Get Windows 10' nagware isn't as easy as you think". InfoWorld. IDG. Archived from the original on December 18, 2016. Retrieved January 12, 2016.
  103. Cunningham, Andrew (December 2, 2021). "Microsoft Edge will now warn users about the dangers of downloading Google Chrome". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on December 6, 2021. Retrieved December 6, 2021.
  104. Warren, Tom (December 2, 2021). "Microsoft's new Windows prompts try to stop people downloading Chrome". The Verge. Archived from the original on December 2, 2021. Retrieved December 2, 2021.
  105. Honorof, Marshall (December 3, 2021). "Microsoft tries to stop users from installing Chrome — again". Tom's Guide. Retrieved July 5, 2023.
  106. Li, Abner. "Microsoft aggressively trying to keep Chrome downloaders using Edge". 9to5Google. Retrieved July 5, 2023.
  107. Warren, Tom (March 15, 2024). "Microsoft is stuffing pop-up ads into Google Chrome on Windows again". The Verge. Retrieved March 20, 2024.
  108. Warren, Tom (August 30, 2023). "Microsoft is using malware-like pop-ups in Windows 11 to get people to ditch Google". The Verge. Retrieved March 20, 2024.
  109. Hancock, Ciarán. "Irish-registered subsidiary of Microsoft records $314bn profit". The Irish Times. Retrieved June 3, 2021.
  110. ^ Neate, Rupert (June 3, 2021). "Microsoft's Irish subsidiary paid zero corporation tax on £220bn profit". The Guardian. Retrieved June 3, 2021.
  111. Doctorow, Cory (January 22, 2020). "The sordid tale of Microsoft's epic tax evasion and the war they waged against the IRS". Boing Boing. Retrieved February 15, 2022.
  112. Kiel, Paul (January 22, 2020). "The IRS Decided to Get Tough Against Microsoft. Microsoft Got Tougher". ProPublica. Retrieved February 15, 2022.
  113. Dvorak, John C. (July 17, 2008). "Microsoft, the Spandex Granny". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on January 13, 2017. Retrieved August 26, 2017.
  114. Mary Jo Foley: The Exit Interview – Robert McLaws: Windows Vista Edition
  115. ^ Gallagher, Ryan (March 7, 2024). "How Microsoft's Bing Helps Maintain Beijing's Great Firewall". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved March 26, 2024.
  116. "Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship". Human Rights Watch. August 9, 2006. Archived from the original on November 22, 2006. Retrieved November 23, 2006.
  117. "China: Internet Companies Aid Censorship". August 10, 2006. Archived from the original on February 14, 2007. Retrieved February 6, 2007.
  118. "Microsoft says error led to no matching Bing images for Tiananmen 'tank man'". Reuters. June 4, 2021.
  119. "Microsoft blocks Bing from showing image results for Tiananmen 'tank man'". The Guardian. June 5, 2021.
  120. "Bing Censors Image Search for 'Tank Man' Even in US". VICE.
  121. Tilley, Aaron (June 4, 2021). "Microsoft's Bing Temporarily Blocked Searches of Tiananmen Square 'Tank Man' Image". The Wall Street Journal.
  122. "Microsoft says error caused 'Tank Man' Bing censorship". BBC News. June 5, 2021.
  123. Greenwald, Glenn (June 6, 2013). "NSA taps in to internet giants' systems to mine user data, secret files reveal". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on August 18, 2006. Retrieved June 6, 2013.
  124. Gellman, Barton; Poitras, Laura (June 6, 2013). "U.S. intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies in broad secret program". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on June 15, 2013. Retrieved June 6, 2013.
  125. Savage, Charlie; Wyatt, Edward; Baker, Peter (June 6, 2013). "U.S. says it gathers online data abroad". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 16, 2017. Retrieved February 18, 2017.
  126. "Google, Facebook, Dropbox, Yahoo, Microsoft And Apple Deny Participation In NSA PRISM Surveillance Program". Tech Crunch. June 6, 2013. Archived from the original on June 13, 2013. Retrieved June 6, 2013.
  127. ^ Greenwald, Glenn; Ewen MacAskill; Laura Poitras; Spencer Ackerman; Dominic Rushe (July 12, 2013). "How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on November 19, 2015. Retrieved July 12, 2013.
  128. Bott, Ed. "Windows 10 telemetry secrets: Where, when, and why Microsoft collects your data". ZDNet. Archived from the original on July 12, 2019. Retrieved July 30, 2019.
  129. Anthony, Sebastian (August 4, 2015). "Windows 10 doesn't offer much privacy by default: Here's how to fix it". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on May 28, 2019. Retrieved May 28, 2019.
  130. "Windows 10s default privacy settings and controls leave much to be desired". ExtremeTech. Ziff Davis. Archived from the original on July 30, 2015. Retrieved July 31, 2015.
  131. Hern, Alex (August 1, 2015). "Windows 10: Microsoft under attack over privacy". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on May 28, 2019. Retrieved May 28, 2019.
  132. Warren, Tom (March 6, 2018). "Microsoft's new Windows 10 privacy controls should avoid 'keylogger' concerns". The Verge. Archived from the original on May 28, 2019. Retrieved May 28, 2019.
  133. Toor, Amar (July 21, 2016). "France orders Microsoft to stop tracking Windows 10 users". The Verge. Archived from the original on May 28, 2019. Retrieved May 28, 2019.
  134. Warren, Tom (April 5, 2017). "Microsoft finally reveals what data Windows 10 really collects". The Verge. Archived from the original on May 28, 2019. Retrieved May 28, 2019.
  135. Warren, Tom (February 21, 2017). "EU still concerned over Windows 10 privacy despite Microsoft's changes". The Verge. Archived from the original on May 28, 2019. Retrieved May 28, 2019.
  136. "Upcoming Windows 10 update reduces spying, but Microsoft is still mum on which data it specifically collects". ExtremeTech. Archived from the original on May 28, 2019. Retrieved May 28, 2019.
  137. Cimpanu, Catalin. "Dutch government report says Microsoft Office telemetry collection breaks GDPR". ZDNet. Archived from the original on June 8, 2019. Retrieved May 28, 2019.
  138. "New DPIA on Microsoft Office and Windows software: still privacy risks remaining (short blog)". July 29, 2019.
  139. "Microsoft sacks journalists to replace them with robots". The Guardian. May 30, 2020.
  140. "Microsoft 'to replace journalists with robots'". BBC News. May 30, 2020. Retrieved May 31, 2020.
  141. "Microsoft is cutting dozens of MSN news production workers and replacing them with artificial intelligence". The Seattle Times. May 29, 2020.
  142. Alexander, Leigh (May 14, 2008). ""theGAYERGamer" Gets Xbox Live Ban, Microsoft Explains". Kotaku. Archived from the original on March 1, 2009. Retrieved March 4, 2009.
  143. Alexander, Leigh (May 21, 2008). "Microsoft Explains "Gaywood" Ban". Archived from the original on February 28, 2009. Retrieved March 4, 2009.
  144. "Identifying Yourself As A Lesbian Gets You Banned On XBOX Live". Consumerist. February 25, 2009. Archived from the original on October 8, 2016. Retrieved September 29, 2016.
  145. Plunkett, Luke. "Microsoft Looking To Change Xbox Live Sexual "Discrimination"". Archived from the original on May 16, 2013. Retrieved March 4, 2009.
  146. "Xbox LIVE policy and Gamertags/Profiles Redux"
  147. "XBox Live, Homophobia, and Online Gaming Policy". September 14, 2011. Archived from the original on April 16, 2009. Retrieved July 3, 2009.
  148. Warren, Tom (January 22, 2021). "Microsoft is increasing the price of Xbox Live Gold". The Verge. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
  149. Blumenthal, Eli. "Microsoft gives Xbox Live Gold a price hike to make Game Pass more tempting". CNET. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
  150. Warren, Tom (January 22, 2021). "Microsoft risks a year of goodwill with its Xbox Live price hike". The Verge. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
  151. "No Changes to Xbox Live Gold Pricing, Free-to-Play Games to be Unlocked [Update]". Xbox Wire. January 22, 2021. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
  152. "After Patent Office Rejection, It is Time For Google To Abandon Its Attempt to Patent Use of Public Domain Algorithm". EFF. August 30, 2018.
  153. ^ "Features of range asymmetric number system encoding and decoding". Retrieved June 14, 2021.
  154. "Third time's a harm? Microsoft tries to get twice-rejected compression patent past skeptical examiners". The Register. Retrieved June 14, 2021.
  155. "After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0". United States Patent and Trademark Office. Retrieved June 14, 2021.
  156. Xu, Vicky Xiuzhong; Cave, Danielle; Leibold, James; Munro, Kelsey; Ruser, Nathan (March 1, 2020). "Uyghurs for sale". Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Archived from the original on August 24, 2020. Retrieved March 14, 2022.
  157. Chiu, Joanna (November 19, 2024). "Chinese startups supported by Microsoft and Google incubator programs worked with police". Rest of World. Retrieved November 21, 2024.

Further reading

External links

Discussions of Microsoft's business practices:


TCO:


Tax evasion:


User feedback:

Related media

Microsoft Corporation
People
Founders
Board of directors
Senior leadership team
Corporate VPs
Employee groups
Products
Hardware
Software
Programming
languages
Web properties
Company
Conferences
Divisions
Estates
Campaigns
Criticism
Litigation
Acquisitions
Categories: