Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Big Stick in Peru
An anonymous reader points out a Wired story on the continuing Peru saga. In this latest episode, Wired notes that the U.S. Ambassador to Peru has chimed in in support of Microsoft and in opposition to Dr. Villanueva's bill which would have mandated open source software be used by the Peruvian government. On the one hand, sure, our diplomats have a national goal of promoting U.S. enterprise, but do we have to promote companies which we are simultaneously pursuing in court for numerous violations of our laws? Isn't that a bit counter-productive?
Why is a government official stumping for the interests of a single company? ... It used to be that the U.S. was known for promoting freedom, in the guise of democracy and free markets, to other countries.
When was this? Maybe before the US backed execution of Allende in Argentina to the great benefit of ITT but after installing a friendly dictator for United Fruit (Chiquita) in Guatemala?
Those are the examples that come to mind that combine both the stumping for single companies and the deaths of thousands of people instead of promoting freedom, the world is littered with more.
A recent gem in the stumping for individual companies department that comes to mind is the Bush administration putting pressure on India for an Enron power plant.
I think you need to read some more history.
Free Linux CD still could use a Peru affiliate. Interested parties should contact the maintainer on said page.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
He doesn't know. The ambassador just tries to represent what he believes are US interests. Educate him that there is a lot of money to be made from open source software.
See my journal, I write things there
Microsoft brings in many more tax $$$
Microsoft doesn't pay any income taxes, thanks to its (legal, but still dishonest) share-option acccounting scams.