You could argue that they do, in the sense that stealing software/design isn't particular "evil", while Gates' recent philanthropic efforts are most certainly "good". I'm not saying what Gates did back then was right, but it really only led to damage localized to an industry; it didn't endanger people's lives or destroy culture. As a counter example, I'd call the RIAA/MPAA evil, in that they promote copyright extension and censorship, both of which directly damage culture. Back to the argument, improving the quality of life for millions of people is something I put squarely in the "good" category. In other words, Gates' previous actions didn't harm the quality of life for anyone, but his recent actions improve quality of life. So I call that "washing away the sins."

But please don't take that argument too seriously, because I don't. Its myopic and doesn't take into consideration the other, worse, things that Microsoft has done (that actually harmed people's quality of life). And really, quantifying these things is quite difficult. I'm just presenting an alternative viewpoint.

Stealing ideas may not be that evil. Stealing ideas, then rabidly attacking anyone who attempts to copy you does seem more evil.

Disputable. Getting people to use pre-XP Windows, and also strong-arming the PC manufacturers into not bundling other operating systems such as BeOS, definitely count as harm to me.

I was, and maybe it doesn't wash them away, but Gates has become a powerful force for good in this world and I'm grateful for that. I don't see much point to nursing old grudges.