When Bill Gates, or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, donates to humanitarian causes, there are a great number of people who rush to pat Bill/Microsoft on the back.
You see the same old statements, "How can Bill Gates be evil?", "Microsoft can't be all that bad", "Bill Gates is a saint", etc.
Even though the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is supposedly nothing to do with Microsoft, everybody associates Bill with Microsoft, and Microsoft with Bill. When the foundation does a good deed it's a credit to Microsoft.
It's quite odd really: everybody seems to forget the misery Bill has caused via his company, and they focus only on the latest 'good deed'. Perhaps this is exactly what Bill wants?
It's like a serial killer donating his victims body parts to hospitals.
What about the poor schools in the U.S. that Microsoft audited, an action that cost the schools thousands? Did Bill care that the schools were poor? Where was this care and compassion then? It was purely business then, and it still is now.
Why can't people see that these donations go hand-in-glove with Microsoft's business objectives?
First it was Open Source in India, and Microsoft claiming that India was of "strategic importance", and attempting to push Microsoft solutions at the Government. At the same time, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donated millions to fighting AIDS in India. Bribery?
Now it's Open Source in Africa, and Microsoft is pushing its solutions there, even offering free tuition to combat the 'threat' of Open Source. At the same time, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has donated millions to fighting Malaria in Africa. Bribery?
Both of the aforementioned countries showed high interest in Open Source, and both got donations toward fighting diseases specific to these countries.
Microsoft loves to get governments locked into its solutions, and is certainly just as anti-competitive as ever. Surely it's not that hard to see a pattern?