Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nokia's Elop Set To Receive $25 Million Bonus After Acquisition

Posted by Unknown on from the surprise-surprise dept.

jones_supa writes with an update on the Microsoft purchase of Nokia. From the article: "Stephen Elop, the former Nokia Oyj chief executive officer who is rejoining Microsoft, is set to get more than $25 million if the Finnish company completes the sale of its handset business to the software maker. Microsoft will pay 70 percent of the projected total amount of about 18.8 million euros ($25.5 million), and Nokia the remainder, according to a proxy filing by Nokia today. The value of Elop's reward is estimated using Nokia's Sept. 6 closing share price and may still change. Nokia shares have dropped by more than a third since Elop was hired on Sept. 10, 2010, even with the stock's gain since the sale to Microsoft was announced. Nokia shareholders are set to vote on the transaction Nov. 19. Elop will move back to Microsoft as part of the $7.2 billion takeover. He is also a candidate to succeed Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer."

60 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. Ahhh ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good to see the old boys network is thriving.

    They don't choose candidates with successful track records, just the ones who they play golf with.

    From the sounds of it, Elop completely fucked Nokia, is selling the farm to Microsoft, and will make out like a bandit and get the chance to be considered to run Microsoft.

    All in all, I'd say the shareholders of Nokia are getting the shaft here. This is just corporate pillaging.

    1. Re:Ahhh ... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      What makes you think that was not a success?

    2. Re: Ahhh ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      MS got Nokia cheap, Elop gets millions. I'd say it was a success for both of them. Nokia? They got screwed from the inside out.

    3. Re:Ahhh ... by poetmatt · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are exactly correct: embrace extend extinguish, same as always. This is no different. The extend was Elop -> Nokia, and back to MS after the damage is done.

    4. Re:Ahhh ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also ran Android? Yeah, like anyone has made a bundle selling anything Windows on the mobile platform in a long time. It was only profitable when it was the only game in town.

      As for direct involvement, well, the "tank Nokia and buy them at discount" plan had been hatched long before Elop even left Microsoft. He played his part perfectly.

    5. Re: Ahhh ... by eka.renardi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Xiaomi does not even exist when Elop became CEO of Nokia. And they are thriving. Android maybe a saturated market, bit it is a market that is growing and thriving. Windows phone on the other hand is a technology looking for a market. Nokia has it all, the value chain, the distribution channel, all they have to do is to sell phone what everyone wants. Instead Elop make a decision to sell a phone, so lame, that nobody wants.

    6. Re:Ahhh ... by DMiax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some have suggested that Nokia should have adopted Android. There's already an overwhelming glut of Android devices on the market. Samsung is the dominant player by a huge margin with LG, HTC, Sony fighting over scraps. So what would be Nokia's strategy? Enter the fray as an also ran and hope that in the next 5+ years they somehow evolve into a relevant player? Don't forget that they were already heavily bleeding cash by this point.

      If there is a meme that needs to die about Nokia is this absurd notion that Windows Phones are somehow not competing with the Android phones.

    7. Re:Ahhh ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First, Stephen Elop wasn't directly involved with much of the negotiation that happened between Microsoft and Nokia.

      WTF? The CEO wasn't involved in takeover negotiations? If he wasn't involved then he wasn't CEO.

    8. Re:Ahhh ... by Quila · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Notice MS is giving most of the money. It's the payoff for selling Nokia for cheap.

    9. Re:Ahhh ... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Keeping meego and going forward with that might have actually got them somewhere. They had the resources just fine, until they fired them to keep the books looking a little better for a few months.

    10. Re:Ahhh ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What complete BS. Nokia's smartphone unit was making profits, had incrasing smartphone sales, and was far bigger than apple or samsung before they switched to windows phone. Only after this, sales dropped and sales turned into losses. Just look it up, the numbers are out there.

    11. Re:Ahhh ... by wonkavader · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is hogwash. Elop killed the company's feature phone business which was doing fine for the time being. Yes, Nokia needed help. Yes, it was on a slope downward and needed to figure out how to compete. But Elop didn't do that. Elop jumped forward without covering the company's behind.

      That he made a wrong choice of where to jump to, that it suspicious in hindsight, those are irrelevant. He didn't work to preserve the part of the business which worked and would have kept working for several more years if he hadn't driven a stake into it -- that is his massive sin of incompetance, or perhaps worse.

    12. Re:Ahhh ... by gbjbaanb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have heard rumours that Nokia was so unhappy with the sales of Windows Phones ( or more likely, their profit margin on the things) that they were considering dumping them for Android - and that the MS takeover is a reaction to that.

      I'm not sure if it was the board who were pushing for that, and Elop snitched on the plans to his old buddies, or if Elop figured it all out (on his own!) that he'd end up forcing the takeover.

    13. Re:Ahhh ... by Rinikusu · · Score: 2

      Nokia could compete very well on hardware quality on the Android platform. Sure, there's a gigantic glut of android phones, but the vast majority are cheap plastic garbage. If the 1020 was available on my carrier and had Android, it would be a no-brainer for me. And you're wrong: no one is talking about the 1020 because of Windows Phone 8, they're talking about the amazing camera on it.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    14. Re:Ahhh ... by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Smaller shareholders were never asked and they were told that Elop was trying to run the company well and not deliberately tank it - but he tanked it deliberately and is now being paid for doing so. he should be sued, pretty much everyone in the world thinks he deliberately tanked it.

      See, if the board had issued a stockmarket info piece saying that they hired Elop to destroy the firm then it would be all legit - it being legit being directly tied to if they announced their intentions to stockholders. but they didn't. if the board fucks small investors deliberately that's illegal and they of course had inside information that he was going to fuck up the company in various ways - best example of deliberately fucking up the company being to publicly announce a product line as dead - a product line that was selling more units than ever before in it's life, that same year was also the best ever for symbian app revenues for developers - in panic he announced it dead to kill it. Tying Nokia to a shitty "smart"phone platform was just icing on that shitcake.

      That he is getting a bonus for finalizing Nokias death is not that much of a surprise though, since his career possibilities outside of MS are pretty much burnt - because he is a shit CEO, like, he is really really bad at that job while being quite good in taking bribes, only fscking idiot would put a guy like that in charge. I can't see Gates putting him in charge of MS because all Elop would do would be to sell it to Oracle in 4 years(He would find a way, first by announcing that Windows is dead because ,if you count smartphones and tablets as computers, then it's marketshare has tanked and will be 0% if current trends continue in 5 years(insert xckcd comic about trends) and then he would announce they're going to go all cloud with Oracles cloud tools "before it's too late" and then it would just naturally flow from there..).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    15. Re: Ahhh ... by jd2112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And don't forget that the remains of Nokia still hold all of their patents. Since they won't be manufacturing phones anymore the only reason I can think od for them to NOT have sold them to Microsoft is so they can sue Apple and all the Android manufacturers and Microsoft can pretend that they have nothing to do with it.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    16. Re:Ahhh ... by TemporalBeing · · Score: 4, Informative

      You need to read up on the facts before making such statements. First, Stephen Elop wasn't directly involved with much of the negotiation that happened between Microsoft and Nokia.

      I could them telling Elop not to be involved for the sake of conflicts of interest; however, my guess is that Elop was involved on the Microsoft side about this kind of thing before he took the position at Nokia.

      Secondly, and more importantly, Nokia was as good as dead without Microsoft and Windows Phone.

      Quite incorrect. I'm familiar with quite a few people who worked for Nokia and they had a great line up coming about. The only MeeGo-based phone ever sold (the N900) did far better than any WIndows Phones, had rave reviews, etc. It did so well that when Nokia kicked it to the curb the employees who worked on it started a new company (Jolla) and are now producing it under a new name - SailFish - and still getting rave reviews, a good audience, etc. That could have been Nokia - only better since Nokia had a full pipeline (some of which Jolla picked up in terms of sales channels) that they could have really pumped it full with.

      Nokia's decline started over a decade ago when they thought the future of mobile phones was disposable fashion accessories. When they finally got into smartphones late in the game they chose technological dead ends.

      Again, incorrect. They did make some mistakes with how they handled Symbian. However, they had a very large market using Symbian and they had setup a complete transition for customers and partners to move from Symbian to MeeGo. Something that got completely tossed out in the move to Windows.

      Praise Symbian or Meego to your heart's content but it's all irrelevant. Nokia didn't have the resources to turn either into a relevant platform.

      Incorrect. Nokia had plenty of capability to turn MeeGo into a competitor to iOS and Android.

      There was far too much effort and expense required to turn them into viable competitors to Android or iOS, let alone then getting third parties to support the platform with apps.

      Again incorrect. They had a very viable platform with a large community of developers under Symbian that they were providing a means of transition to MeeGo for. They had all the third party apps - and one of the biggest and oldest app stores (Ovi) to do it with.

      Some have suggested that Nokia should have adopted Android. There's already an overwhelming glut of Android devices on the market.

      There is now. There were not that many when Elop started at Nokia. Android was well established - it was quickly becoming a dominant player - but many had not yet aligned themselves to it. It was obvious Android would be #1 or #2 alongside iOS. Either way, Android with a transition plan for their existing Symbian partners would have let them keep what they had - a very sizeable chunk of the mobile market.

      Samsung is the dominant player by a huge margin with LG, HTC, Sony fighting over scraps.

      FYI - Samsung picked up that position and margin in the wake of people's reaction to Elop's burning memo platform and total annihilation of their Symbian and MeegGo products in favor of a Windows Phone they had not yet finished making. If Elop had not pre-emptively killed MeeGo then they would have had kept that dominant position and Samsung would have had to fight to get there.

      So what would be Nokia's strategy? Enter the fray as an also ran and hope that in the next 5+ years they somehow evolve into a relevant player?

      That was certainly the position in taking on Windows phone.

      Don't forget that they were already heavily bleeding cash by this point.

      Again, as others pointed out they were still profitable - which means they were not bleeding cash. You only bleed cash when your books go

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    17. Re:Ahhh ... by sconeu · · Score: 2

      "From the sounds of it, Elop completely fucked Nokia, is selling the farm to Microsoft, and will make out like a bandit and get the chance to be considered to run Microsoft."

      In other words, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!

      What do you think Elop took the job for? First thing he did was kill all other development at Nokia except Windows Phone. There's been speculation since his first day at Nokia that he was a MS plant.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  2. For some reason... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...the phrase "thirty pieces of silver" keeps coming to mind...

    1. Re:For some reason... by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 2

      Well, here "Microsoft" tells you enough.

    2. Re:For some reason... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some people here predicted that Elop was sent in to tank Nokia and get MS to buy it. Others argued that, besides loyalty to MS, why would be do that? Well $25M is another reason. He may not have known the exact amount but generally the CEO of a company getting bought out would be well compensated for it even if the deal is terrible for everyone else.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  3. Conscience? by CMYKjunkie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder how Elop can sleep at night for getting $25mil to tank a company.

    But I suppose it isn't too hard on a pillow made of 250,000 Benjamins

    1. Re:Conscience? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      $25 million buys an awful lot of Ambien

      And, hookers and blow if needed.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Conscience? by Apharmd · · Score: 5, Funny

      How does he sleep? On the finest silk sheets, of course. Morality is for the little people.

    3. Re:Conscience? by turgid · · Score: 2

      Oh, now, cynicism!

      It's just the Great Invisible Hand changing the lightbulb.

      The Great Invisible Hand has probably already advanced the careers and earnings potentials of all of the staff that were let go as a result.

      Stop thinking like a pinko-commie.

      --
      Stick Men
    4. Re:Conscience? by gagol · · Score: 4, Funny

      Elop looks like Dogbert inside a human costume to me.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
  4. Nokia was RIPPED OFF! by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Funny

    I could have run their business into the ground for half that much!

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:Nokia was RIPPED OFF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You might not have dug quite as deep into the ground though. It takes special skills to fail so extensively.

    2. Re:Nokia was RIPPED OFF! by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Will someone explain to me like I'm five how it is that most large corporations seem to have buckets of cash lying around to waste on executive pay? It seems to me that executives rarely do anything similar to pitching a perfect game in major league baseball, yet they're given money like they are. And how is it that companies that do this aren't out competed by companies who give reasonable pay?

      I'm a flamingly liberal academic. I have no understanding of business. I don't worship at the altar of "free market economics solves all problems," so I wouldn't be surprised if there were an obvious reason such wasteful spending isn't going extinct. Still, a simpler explanation would be that these executives actually DO make decisions which justify their absurd paychecks, or at least make it worth it to a company.

      So seriously, what's the deal?

    3. Re:Nokia was RIPPED OFF! by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      My similarly pinko commie understanding is that compensation is voted on by the board and these folks are generally board members of other companies where their board members are executives. So they all give each other huge salaries and raises for fear if they vote against they might no get huge salaries and lose out on crazy raises.

    4. Re:Nokia was RIPPED OFF! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Informative

      You need to work on your pyschopathy. Everyone has some psychopathic tendencies, but if you want to understand a CEO you need to embrace and extend (but certainly not extinguish) those traits.

      Stomp on little animals. Steal money from children. Get elected to some office and perform some official malfeasance. Find a trophy wife or two (or husband, lets be 21st century about this). Read up on biographies of famous people.

      You seem like an intelligent, hard working person. It's not beyond your grasp.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Nokia was RIPPED OFF! by stanjo74 · · Score: 2
      very simple. The bigger and older the company, the more proxy voter shareholders it has (traded on the secondary exchanges to millions to people who own only a handful of shares each). These shareholders have no clue what is going on in the company they own. They let the board and executives run the show unabated.

      The real game is played at the board level and executives. The company itself is just a stage - nobody cares about the company in the long run - one can always incorporate another. The board and the executives care about the company as a mean to an end - to make money off it. How the money is made - it doesn't matter. Sometimes money is made by making product and selling it; sometimes money is made by selling out; sometimes by liquidating and golden parachutes.

      A successful public company is that makes the board and the executives rich. Products, employment, etc. is just secondary effects, to make things look not too sociopathic.

  5. A comparison by Stormwatch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That'd be like giving captain Schettino a bonus when the Costa Concordia is salvaged, even though he's the dolt who sank it.

    --
    Circumcision is child abuse.
    1. Re:A comparison by akozakie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No. That's like a salvage company taking over the sunken ship for pennies and rehiring the captain they sent there.

      Corporate assasination is relatively easy. Corporate poisoning is difficult. He had to make Nokia cheap as fast as possible but without completely killing it or losing the technological potential or IP assets. Plus, narrowly avoid crossing the line that would cause either legal problems or massive shareholder outrage. That's a hard job. The bonus is well earned.

  6. Very good... and a better suggestion by jkrise · · Score: 4, Funny

    when, not if; Elop rejoins Microsoft; Google and the Android phone developers could reward him another $1 bn for achieving the same spectacular success he did at Finland.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  7. WTF? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is this even legal? It is almost as if nobody sees it as a bribe because they don't think a bribe can happen in the open. The SEC needs to put a stop to this acquisition. It smacks of fraud on a massive level.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    1. Re:WTF? by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that the damage is done. Nokia is dead, the spider venom injected years ago has already liquefied the innards, all that's left is for the spider to suck the guts back out. Stopping it now isn't going to save Nokia.

      All we can hope is that future traders will see incoming Microsoft leadership as a strong sell signal.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:WTF? by triffid_98 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I understand this may be confusing on the face of it. Here are a couple of helpful articles explaining why these shady deals happen all the time in spite of government *cough* 'oversight'.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

  8. Returning to the Mothership by nojayuk · · Score: 5, Funny

    E-lop. Phone. Hoooome.

  9. Re:it's worth it by sjames · · Score: 2

    Unless the former and future MS exec had some influence on Nokia's fall into the pit of despair. Like, for example, running it poorly.

  10. CEOs and Weather Forecasters by DontBlameCanada · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'll take, "Professions You Get Paid No Matter How Much You Fuck Up" for $25 million Alex.

    Excerpt from the new reality gameshow: Shareholder Jeopardy

  11. And people wonder why we hate CEOs by dirk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So let me get this right. He took over Nokia 3 years ago. In that time their stock price has dropped by more than a third. In any way you measure it, he has failed as the head of the company. So they decide to sell to Microsoft, because he has been unable to do his job well and do anything to keep them from sinking further. And he will be REWARDED with $25 million?!?!?! So for helping his company continue to fail, he will get a $25 million dollar bonus over what is I'm sure a fairly ridiculous compensation package.

    And to top it off, he is on the short list of people to become the new Microsoft CEO? They really are considering basically giving him a huge promotion for being unable to turn Nokia around and letting them get so bad off that selling to MS was their only option? CEOs are absolutely rewarded for failure, because his performance can't be seen as anything other than a failure.

    --

    "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    1. Re:And people wonder why we hate CEOs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In any way you measure it, he has failed as the head of the company.

      Some people will say that the company was in decline when he joined; he was successful in making the decline smaller. E.g. they didn't actually go bankrupt.

      (I think those people are deluded, but that's just my opinion).

    2. Re:And people wonder why we hate CEOs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, Microsoft is rewarding him. His job was to make Nokia cheap for Microsoft to purchase. He did a fantastic job. So they are rewarding him.

      Microsoft has seen that Elop is a fantastic candidate - he is willing to ruin other companies for Microsoft's benefit. Can Microsoft ask for a more loyal candidate for a CEO?

    3. Re:And people wonder why we hate CEOs by Flavianoep · · Score: 2

      If anyone wants proof of what is said above: Ten people that made millions for being terrible at their job

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    4. Re:And people wonder why we hate CEOs by thoth · · Score: 2

      Sounds like Wall Street Rules, where success is rewarded and so is failure, just a little less so.

  12. Well, of course. by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Money paid for value received. Microsoft got what they wanted, an artificially undervalued cell division, and paid accordingly.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  13. Re:it's worth it by Qzukk · · Score: 2

    Therefore, $25 million is a pittance compraed to the billions that Nokia shareholders would have lost had the deal not gone through.

    How much would they have lost if Elop hadn't slit the company's throat in the first place to butcher it for Microsoft?

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  14. Exactly like Belluzzo by ron_ivi · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sounds almost exactly like how Belluzzo was rewarded for killing HPUX, PA-RISC, IRIX, and 64-bitMIPS in favor of WinNT-on-Itanium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Belluzzo

    1. Re:Exactly like Belluzzo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Now I have become Richard, the destroyer of micro architectures."

  15. Why all the complacency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I knew this was going to happen. EVERYONE knew this was going to happen the moment we heard a Microsoft guy was going to be put in charge. EVERY step this guy has taken has led to this.

    I always remember Nokia as being a point of national pride for the finns! They loved to brag about it, being in the forefront of a hot and growing tech industry. Why are they letting an American company walk in and scoop it all up in what is essentially a giant fraudulent business exchange? So many high-tech jobs lost. Where is the outrage?

    I know Finland isn't the US, but why haven't executives been hauled in front of whatever the equivalent of congress is there to explain why a key industry has been sabotaged and sold overseas?

    1. Re:Why all the complacency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nokia was a finnish company, owned by finns. Later it was majority owned by US investment co, US mutuals funds et.c. They control the board, appoint a US CEO.
      The nationality of ownership changed. Nokia listed on NYSE since 1994. The owners thought that Elop was the right man to lead the company.

  16. Shill alert by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Informative

    Before anyone bothers to carefully craft a response to the poster above, have a look at his comment history: this is one of the clearest examples of a Microsoft shill that I've ever seen on Slashdot.

    1. Re:Shill alert by Mr_DW · · Score: 2

      Before anyone bothers to carefully craft a response to the poster above, have a look at his comment history: this is one of the clearest examples of a Microsoft shill that I've ever seen on Slashdot.

      If you were honest you would have put: "Before anyone bothers to engage in a reasoned debate *I* shall step in with an ad hominem attack and show how my thoughts are superior over this loser. You know because I don't actually have the ability to debate them. " Sad!

  17. Like a dragon... by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 4, Funny

    On a huge pile of money!

    --
    0 1 - just my two bits
  18. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Read the blogs following Nokia and check financial statements. Although declining, Noka was profitable company until Elop took over.
    Then sharp decline and mercy killing by Microsoft.
    It had very bad smell from beginning.

  19. Good news for Jolla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Given that Jolla is having their second round of pre-orders today (in Finland only), I expect Finns, angry at the looting of one of Finland's biggest and most well-known companies by Microsoft, are more likely than ever to throw money at a Finnish phone maker founded by ex-Nokia guys who quit and/or were fired under Elop...

  20. Quoting directly from VentureBeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "A high ranking VP of a corporate giant becomes the new CEO of a company in a different business, in a different country. He doesn’t sell his home in Seattle, nor does his family move with him, even though he’s ostensibly going to be there permanently. Over the next three years, he makes counterintuitive decisions that abandon his new company’s core strengths, and their value plummets to a tiny fraction of what it was.

    You get the idea. Essentially, the theory here — and this has been floating around for a while — is that Stephen Elop became the CEO of Nokia to soften the company up for the Microsoft takeover left Nokia without its hardware business."

    It is so blindingly obvious. If anyone doesn't see this, they are beyond hope. One might quote the Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice....", but it simply does not account for the amount of maneuvering and the number of counterintuitive senseless decisions that made this acquisition possible. What is more applicable is: "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,.....".

  21. Anti-shill alert by RedBear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Before anyone bothers to carefully craft a response to the poster above, have a look at his comment history: this is one of the clearest examples of a Microsoft shill that I've ever seen on Slashdot.

    Despite your post's high "informative" mod points (at the moment) I do not believe you are correct. I was curious, so I actually did take a look at MaWeiTao's comment history, as you suggested, and see no evidence of anything but fairly well-reasoned and balanced posts on a variety of subjects, including Microsoft, where he seems to hold a remarkably neutral position rarely seen on this forum. Perhaps that is the problem? His argument that the Slashdot community tends to harbor foaming-at-the-mouth purposeless hatred for everything Microsoft does even when they haven't really done anything wrong seems to have been right on point, and even the mods agreed with him on that particular day.

    Evidence of being a Microsoft shill, I do not see. What I do see is that you launched an apparently unjustified ad hominem attack against someone you happen to disagree with. Just because this person has a slightly different opinion and/or perspective about Apple and/or Microsoft and/or Nokia than you do does not make them a shill. Did MaWeiTao arouse your ire precisely because he tends to post using a very neutral, non-confrontational tone of voice? Kind of like me? He fails to constantly attack Microsoft sufficiently so that makes him a shill? His opinions could hardly be considered praise. They're just neutral.

    I now wait with bated* breath for someone to baselessly accuse me of being a Microsoft shill as well, for having the temerity to defend someone who has been accused (and apparently convicted by some) of being a Microsoft shill.

    * Yes that is the correct spelling. Look it up. A dictionary lookup a day keeps ignorance at bay. I just made that up.

    1. Re:Anti-shill alert by Rational · · Score: 2

      the Slashdot community tends to harbor foaming-at-the-mouth purposeless hatred for everything Microsoft does

      Unless, of course, a comparison is being made with Apple at the time...

      --
      "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass