Oh you mean he vanquished other companies without using any kind of force what-so-ever? Oh he bundled! (which every company does) Oh he used market leverage! (which every company does)
Did they use the government + legislation to become successful? (unlike most large companies) No, they made fools out of the largest tech company on earth, IBM.
Netscape lost why? Because of their own incompetence, as proven by the rise of Firefox. Did Microsoft stop the rise of Java, nope, turns out it's slightly common these days. Did they kill Apple? Nope, Jobs would tell you himself that Apple was its own worst enemy. And on, and on, and on. Did they stop the rise of Android or iOS? Nope, couldn't even begin to. Music, movies? Nope, nada. How about search? Har har. Do they dominate tablets (despite practically inventing the field)? Nope. Do they dominate gaming? Nope. Intuit? You know that story. How about Linux? They would have loved to have killed it, they couldn't even touch it. How about Apache? Turns out it's doing pretty well these days. Social anything? Nope. Shopping anything? Nope. Payments anything? Nope. Databases? Nope, at best they're a modest player. It's a really long list.
So... the problem was what exactly? They had market power for a few years (maybe ten years tops), and then it faded.
There was nothing particularly terrible about how Gates produced that money.
And let's not forget that Microsoft -- as a corporation -- as no responsibilities other than to make money for its shareholders and, as CEO, Bill Gates had likewise no responsibility beyond making money for his employers (i.e. shareholders). So talk about what Microsoft did or did not do is disingenuous since it is people, not corporations, that have moral or social responsibilities.
Therefore, what Bill Gates has done is extremely praiseworthy as he has spent his own personal wealth and it is not diminished by whatever Microsoft may have done to give him that wealth.
This trend has now been reversed since his passing.
"Despite accumulating an estimated $8.3 billion fortune...there is no public record of Mr. Jobs giving money to charity..." "in 1997, when Mr. Jobs returned to Apple, he closed the company’s philanthropic programs." http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/the-mystery-of-steve-...
"And it wasn’t until after an unflattering media report about Jobs on the subject over the summer, that Apple in September initiated a “matching gifts” program, under which donations to philanthropies made by employees are matched by the company." http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-10-06/business/35277...
This was just the first 3 results of the google search. There are hundreds of more sources to choose from.
Take note of the poster's wording, and leap of accusation. He has zero basis for his position, but he's not letting that stop him from passing judgement.
There's a word for that sort of behaviour. It isn't complimentary.
Basic economics, man.
The extension of this is that if you've accumulated great wealth (through the market, rather than through dictatorship or government) then you have also generated great wealth for your business customers or clients. But that wealth will be more spread out.
That's great; "making money" however is, seeing how there is a fixed amount in circulation.