This is in part because they have a heavy patent culture, perhaps due to their legacy as a machines company.
This is what tech companies spent in Q3 2013, maybe someone else can post IBM's stats but Microsoft's spending doesn't look all that high to me.
Google 3.4M
Microsoft 2.2M
Facebook 1.7M
Apple 0.97M
Amazon 0.78M
I think the real story is how cheap the lobbying costs are.
What I completely fail to understand with all the Snowden revelations and stories like this is that Silicon Valley tech folks have enormous salaries and high disposable income.
If they would actually contribute some of that to a PAC or to the EFF, it would be way more productive than sitting in Starbucks sipping a $5 latte and posting "Not going to get the Xbox from M$. Getting a PS4 for $400 + games for $60 each instead! That's going to teach them! And Bill Gates sucks despite helping the poorest people in Africa and India!" from their latest MacBook or iPad Air on HN articles such as these(you can see those posts below).
I guess gathering HN karma feels better and is cheaper than actually trying to make a real difference on issues that people seem to write emotional posts about.
Having seen a lot of such issues and discussions from my Slashdot days, my prediction is that nothing will come out of it except a lot of hot air discussion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/29/dark-money-2012-ele...
... nonprofits like Crossroads GPS and trade associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are allowed to keep their donors secret. As a result, there is a great flood of campaign spending this election cycle for which there is no official paper trail.
I don't think the proper response of rich Valley people is to ramp up their donations to PACs unless it's the Wolf-PAC which is organizing to pass a Constitutional amendment to reform campaign finance and lobbying:
Software patent reform is battling a symptom, not the cause.
Oh, and then there are the insider trading tips too.
As to this bill, it's a shame. I don't think there's a politician out there who understands B.F. Skinner.
Seriously, people need to understand that unless you are reasonably famous, people care way less about what you say than what you do. That means money. Don't give it to people and companies you don't like. Give it to people and companies you do like.
Oh and for the love of god, don't argue for silly "campaign finance" laws that restrict our ability to donate to politicians. I guarantee these large companies with armies of lawyers and lobbyists will be way more adept at finding loopholes than we the average people will be. It silences us way more than them.
> And few firms have larger software patent portfolios than Microsoft and IBM. These companies, which also happen to have two of the software industry's largest lobbying budgets, have been leading voices against the expansion of the CBM program.
I can believe that IBM does far more software patent lobbying than most of the firms whose core products are not directly software related