So I just read Bill Gates' 1976 Open Letter To Hobbyists, in which he whines about not making more money from his software. You know, instead of being proud of making software that people wanted to use. And then the bastard went on and made proprietary licences for software the industry standard, holding back innovation and freedom for decades. What a douche canoe.

top 95 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 97 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Watch the TV movie from the late 90s "Pirates of Silicon Valley" which pretty much paints both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs as really shitty people. I mean just look at what Gates did with the Altair. Said he had an operating system, didn't have an operating system, and what have you.

Then there's the whole Xerox Park thing where neither Apple nor Microsoft would be where they're at today without the engineers at Xerox who were pretty much forced to hand over their stuff because Xerox execs didn't see value in a GUI and Mouse. Gates and Jobs both were more than happy to go in there and pillage what was developed in order to create Windows and The Macintosh/MacOS

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 250 points 11 months ago (23 children)

    AstraZenica COVID vaccine was going to be opensource but he used with weight as a donor to pressure the university to sell it to a firm he had ownership instead

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] [S] 84 points 11 months ago (12 children)

    I read about that, yeah. All hail Mammon; money above all. Sometimes I think wealth changes something in a person's brain, like psychologically or neurologically. It's as if they get so detached from reality that they lose all empathy and sense of community. I've heard the term 'affluenza' used as a joke, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense as a legitimate thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    I think there's research to that effect.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 15 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Well, it would make sense. Rich people have always creeped me out, just instinctively.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Its any position of power in my experience. People get power, justifying in their mind that they and people like them should be in power. Even games about being in charge run into that problem. Maintaining power becomes a major part of the game at some part.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    That's a good point, as illustrated by things like the Stanford Prison Experiment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Also the issue of you need to be a deranged psychopath to get wealthy in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    There’s plenty of wealthy people who aren’t psychopaths, but they are all broken in some way. Usually it’s because capitalism has completely alienated them from our natural communal instincts and taught them that the individual is god. Many are capable of empathy, they just choose to do the selfish thing because they’ve been told their entire lives that “taking care of number one” is a virtue.

    Of course, the impacts of their behavior are the same as if they were psychopaths, so this isn’t me excusing them. But it’s important to know what capitalism does to people and how it requires us to ignore our natural instincts, because the wealthy (the ones capable of empathy, anyways) are the same as the rest of us, only luckier.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago

    as someone who recently escaped the labor trap (that is what capitalists call it...wages are suppressed for a reason...), the shift from needing to work and not is...profound.

    no wonder so many rich cunts are batshit psychopaths, nobody born into $ can ever truly know this feeling of relief (and the resulting stress, just from your brain leaving "survival mode"...hierarchy of needs stuff, then realizing just how fucked everything is, how powerless you still are even as new-rich to change anything...)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    No, I don't think that's accurate. Oxford Unkversity was going to waive their rights to the vaccine, and Gates pressured them to instead partner with Astra-Zeneca. But to my knowledge Gates never profited from that deal. Now, was there still some shady backroom dealing going on? Very possibly.

    kffhealthnews.org/news/rather-than-give-away-its-covid-vaccine-oxford-makes-a-deal-with-drugmaker/amp/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    who cares if he didnt profit? "I convinced this man to make money off of the sick and he did it and profited off of a global contamination, but at least I also didnt get a kickback right? He was just gonna give it away the fuckin idiot!"

    such a swell dude. totally not a shitbag human

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (4 children)

    Where do you see that? That isn't anywhere in your link. The only reference to AZ is that they partnered with one of the companies that Gates invested in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

    His foundation owns stocks in Immunocore who is an Astra partner.

    Edit: immunocore does not own Astra that was a lazy read on my part

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    No they don't dude. AZ doesn't have a parent company. Immunocore has about 1 billion dollars in assets, AZ has about 100 billion. Stop making stuff up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    My bad partner "Immunocore’s specialty, however, has been working in oncology. Its therapies induced industry giants including AstraZeneca (NYSE:AZN), Eli Lilly (NYSE:LLY), GSK (NYSE:GSK) and Genentech to partner with the biotech over the years."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    That's completely different though. So they partner with all the big pharma companies, which makes sense given their research. Unless you think he's secretly on the take from AZ (idk how you would even attempt to bribe Bill Gates), he does not benefit at all financially from the Oxford/AZ deal and there's no sign of wrongdoing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 61 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    There is a viable alternative to the problems raised by Bill Gates in his irate letter to computer hobbyists concerning "ripping off" software. When software is free, or so inexpensive that it's easier to pay for it than to duplicate it, then it won't be "stolen".

    —Jim Warren, July 1976

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [+] 53 points 11 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    I remember reading somewhere that his foundation was all a massive tax avoidance scheme. It was quite a compelling argument when broken down. I wish I could find it again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Idk who these ppl are even donating to, never benefits my life, wherever they go its not benefiting the ppl they took the money from, some third world country if that

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 52 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    And for any of the people saying "he changed".

    One of his most recent "philanthropic" ventures was to partner with Nestle (good start) to "modernize and increase yields" of the dairy industries in impoverished countries.

    The two organizations then sold modern (likely non-servicable) equipment and entrenched them in corporate supply chain systems geared towards export and making it much harder to trade locally (not sure how that part worked, but was in what I read).

    For a grand total of........ 1% increased dairy yields.

    Then 3-4 years later they pulled out, leaving heavily indebted farmers without the corporate supply chains and delivery systems they were forced to switch to, and making it very difficult to switch back to the old ways of working, so they can't sell nearly as much locally.

    Who do you think will buy up those farms when the farmers go bankrupt and have to sell ar rock bottom prices.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 51 points 11 months ago* (8 children)

    His mother was an influential person on the board of directors of several firms. She met with John Opel, who was the IBM chairman, and secured her son's Microsoft contract with IBM in the 1980s, where it then became dominant and made her a ton of money.

    It's vested interests, and who you know.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 30 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Yeah, I read that he was a nepo baby. Also, people say "But he dropped out of university to start Microsoft."

    He dropped out of fucking Harvard. His life was easy as piss from the get-go.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Is everyone at Harvard a nepo baby or has definitely had an easy life? I don’t understand your argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    His mother came from money, being the daughter of a banker, and the granddaughter of a banker. His father was a lawyer who founded a law firm focused on corporate law and technology law. Given that his mom knew Opel personally, and his dad was a technology lawyer, is it any surprise that Gates' first contract with IBM was so incredibly friendly to Microsoft's interests?

    In addition, IBM was under pressure at that point because it was being sued for antitrust violations by the US government. That limited how aggressive it could be in new contracts without drawing extra attention. In other words, the antitrust effort from the US government took power away from IBM and allowed for new companies to flourish. Then about 20 years later, Microsoft was sued for its own illegal use of its monopoly (a trial at which Bill Gates lied on the stand, and where Microsoft falsified evidence), and this work to limit the reach of Microsoft allowed for the Internet to flourish and led directly to the rise of companies like Google and Amazon. It's now time for another round of antitrust to allow more companies to flourish -- only hopefully this time the antitrust efforts don't fade out and are aggressively pursued year after year so we don't get more shitty monopolies making things awful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Hear hear. I had real hopes for Lina Khan during Biden's term, but that seemed to have petered out to nothing. Let's see if something happens once the monster is out of power

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    He sold his first software before it was even finished to his own unuversity.

    He saved Apple to avoid an antitrust trial.

    It's just business right?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    He sold his first software before it was even finished to his own unuversity.

    What drives me crazy is when I hear this fact being cited as a positive thing that makes him a role model.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago

    It is a very good sales person. But he didn't understood how could the network (or Internet) change the world, even with his Windows monopole. He had Encarta and lost it, without reusing it, to Wikipedia.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 37 points 11 months ago

    And in retrospect it's too bad more people didn't steal from Microsoft so that it failed as a business.

  • source
  • [–] 34 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    The Hated One has a few videos about Gates and the shit he has done. Windows is only the tip.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 9 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    I don't know The Hated One; I'm assuming they are a content creator. What kind of stuff do they usually do?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Sorry about that. He is a content creator who posts on Youtube and bitchute who focuses on privacy, security, protesting, civil rights, the environment, and consumer rights. Usually how silicon valley is making all these problems worse with their greed.

    https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHatedOne

    https://www.bitchute.com/channel/rveHH7pMZVtI

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    Obviously Bill Gates is a household name and in the tech community everyone knows who is Steve Ballmer. However not many people know who Paul Allen is even though he was one of the founder of Microsoft at the very start. In 1982 Paul Allen was diagnosed with cancer and Bill and Steve were worried that if Paul died the shares of the company would go to someone else along with control of the company. While Paul was literally getting cancer treatment, Bill and Steve were scheming to dilute the shares of the company to wrestle the control of the company away from Paul. Fortunately for Paul he survived the cancer. It really doesn't put Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer in very good light though. I remember reading about this from Robert X. Cringely's blog about two decades ago and I heard Paul Allen wrote about his version of this story in his memoir before his death.

    Edit: I tried to find the original Robert X. Cringely's story from back in 2006 but looks like that link is broken but he did referenced it in 2011 when Paul Allen's book was released.

    https://www.cringely.com/2011/03/30/i-told-you-so/

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 126 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    He's also a thief of course, as that's the only way to become a billionaire.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 59 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Yup. He stole a bunch of ideas and code, then got upset that people were stealing his ideas and code. Do as I say, not as I do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 11 months ago

    Wait... You're telling me that people born into extreme privilege and wealth turn out to be self-aggrandizing, egotistical, sociopaths who drastically over-estimate their own importance and contribution to society?

    My world view is shook!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 63 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    We all know that every billionaire is a horrible person. They can't be anything else.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    You don't get to a billionn without exploiting people along the way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Warren Buffet is ok in my book.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Would you care to elaborate why he is okay in your book? Do you believe that he can make money out of thin air, without harming other people (mostly those who have the least)? Do you believe that when he invests in Goldman Sachs during the economic crisis in 2008, that it was a good choice? That making money of people losing homes and lives is what a good, or even "ok" person does?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 105 points 11 months ago (22 children)

    Well yes.

    Being a Billionaire should be criminalized

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    I kinda compare it to semi truck weigh stations. I found out some time ago that if the math works out that a truck got from one weigh station to another too fast the driver can get a speeding ticket since its assumed they broke the law getting there. Apply that to money. If a person accumulates too much money, it should just be assumed that person broke laws getting it and they should be severly fined (like, most of it).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    I'm a little disappointed this wasn't a link to the film strip we saw in high school. The cop drawling "Now this here is Rolle's theorem..." is classic.

    Edit: https://vimeo.com/101691769

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    It should be classified as a sign of mental illness. If I had half of a billion dollars I wouldn't work another day in my life and the general public would never hear from me. These fuckers have more money than they could ever spend and still desperately want more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    You can be a billionaire if you are willing to pay a million per month as taxes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    That's a rate of only 1.2% per year, was that your intention ?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago*

    There were a lot of tax write offs through incentives which was a good thing because it actually encouraged rich people and businesses to be proactively productive towards the public good.

    So done right, they paid nowhere near the 80%. Of course there was abuse and loopholes.

    And off topic and contrary to popular thought, Jimmy Carter was the one who started deregulation in this area. He was trying to get the economy moving again and was taking a "reasonable" approach. Reagan took Carter's idea and went on a heist with it to enrich buddies and doners

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Now the only thing I will say is that Bill Gates is giving away much of his fortune and yes it may be to his benefit to a point however other people are actually benefiting from him giving it away. Bill Gates even admits that most of what he did when he was younger was driven out agreed. However he is doing quite a bit to try to change that and make up for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    His donation pledge was more of a flex because he's increased his net worth more than he has donated. Also, people who were friends with Epstein should not get to decide where that money goes.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›