If I was selling something with the potential for such high prices, would I consider setting up a buyer that announces how much it was willing to spend just before the auction?

nuff said

That's what the Apple tells you. Do you believe the manufacturer or what happens in real life?

I'm sure I saw something similar to this when I visited Microsoft...

I wouldn't normally post on this forum (or any), but I have to say, I hated reading through these responses. The personal attacks on Gates were totally unwarranted; he's a successful and remarkably generous person. The attacks on the company are what were asked for, so I can't argue with that. The question asked for the negative opinions and this is the place to find people with lots of those and everyone is entitled to them.
I just thought I'd say something nice about Microsoft. They are a successful company with global market dominance through all manner of tactics fair and foul. And what's wrong with that? The purpose of a company is to sell as much of their product as possible and ensure their competition sells less. Striving to achieve is what people do. Any wannabe successful company would happily 'bury the competition' if they could leaving the competition whining "it's not fair". Those are the breaks.
Microsoft aren't trying to take over the world, they're just trying to be the most successful OS producers. If someone came up with a better product we'd buy it assuming (and this is the important bit) they didn't sell out when MS comes knocking. Just because you're offered hard cash doesn't mean you have to take it. Chances are MS will take your ideas and lose them. Maybe they can't be integrated into what they already have. Maybe your genuinely better product doesn't fit into the direction MS wants to go. Maybe they just don't want to, it's theirs now, they can do whatever they like. None of this is anti-competitive. If you believe you can compete then get into the market and be the competition, but don't whine about how you were bought out and buried. If a company has done well enough that they can afford to buy the competition and close them down, I say well done.
While we're close to the subject, no government has the right to say "You're too successful, stop it". And don't start me on the EU, what a bunch of busybodies.
Anyway, the point is Microsoft won't be the dominant OS forever. Someone will produce something bigger, better, faster, more. These corporations come and go and it's the market that decides (that's us for those of you not paying attention). There are plenty of mega-companies in operation that we don't harass half as bad. Look to the motor industry. GM, for example, sells under names from Cadillac to Suzuki, from Holden to Saab. Every motor manufacturer is owned by someone else to the point where they all probably own each other. Where they have been different is they have maintained individual brand names on takeover and not simply drawn everything under the parent name. That's what gives us the illusion of competition.
I'm going to stop now and let you all think about why you really hate MS and if you really hate MS.