> is to laugh at the reporter
Sorry, but while I didn't laugh at the reporter I can't believe someone worked for 15 years in ME/A and didn't notice the corruption and bribes.
> do business with you
Thanks, I dont' want to do business with someone who didn't understand the comment yet responds with "Do better".
And because you need a clarification: no, I don't defend the corruption described in TFA, I just merely point out what the problem lies not in MS itself but in the modus operandi of many, many people with access to government funds.
You're a saint, and I mean that sincerely.
Anyone more down to earth would be ecstatic to conduct business with a self-professed naive individual, because the art of business is ripping someone off without pissing them off.
You would be shocked, but it is very similar in EU countries too.
Fraud.
> In the government had paid $5.5 million for Microsoft licenses for hardware they did not possess
Microsoft being paid for something doesnt sound like Microsoft bribing someone.
> Qatar’s Ministry of Education was paying $9.5 million annually over seven years for Microsoft Office
Microsoft being paid for something doesnt sound like Microsoft bribing someone.
I too have a Microsoft 365 subscription that keeps autorenewing that I never use.
If the money passed through a 3rd-party which took the cut then it's not even a fraud, because it's up to the purchasing entity to use [or not] the discount. Like sure, it's an obvious collusion but from the point of law there is nothing wrong here.
> I too have a Microsoft 365 subscription that keeps autorenewing that I never use.
And this is the gist of most of OP woes.
/thread.
> A former colleague based in Saudi Arabia who had become upset by what he saw taking place at Microsoft began forwarding me emails and documentation—and I learned that the corruption went much deeper than I had suspected.
Great, the guy just confessed receiving the internal documents from a company sent by an accomplice.
> This decision maker on the customer side would send an email to Microsoft requesting a discount, which would be granted, but the end customer would pay the full fee anyway. The amount of the discount would then be distributed among the parties in cahoots: the Microsoft employee(s) involved in the scheme, the partner, and the decision maker at the purchasing entity—often a government official.
Yep, the most straightforward and easy way to get some additional money.
> In a 2015 meeting with members of the Nigerian Parliament, the president of the Senate complained to me that the government had paid $5.5 million for Microsoft licenses for hardware they did not possess. This should never have happened, because Microsoft’s standard practice was to meet with the National Assembly’s IT department and financial controller to check the number of computers needing licenses before submitting any proposal.
This is not MS' problem, it's the problem of some corrupt paper-pusher who managed to convince all parties what there was a need to spend $5.5M.
> Likewise, auditors discovered that Qatar’s Ministry of Education was paying $9.5 million annually over seven years for Microsoft Office and Windows licenses they weren’t using—as they didn’t even have any PCs or laptop computers
Again, this is not MS' problem.
To sum up: the guy lived in the bubble for 20 years and suddenly he understood.