A ZDNet poll has shown that of nearly 1500 responses, 74 percent of respondents believe that Microsoft should have shown -some compassion" in dealing with PCs for Kids. The remaining 26 percent are of the opinion that -charity or not, it did the wrong thing".
The sheer number of readers that participated in the survey is testament to the overwhelming attention that this battle has received and continues to enjoy.
When Colin and Therresa Bayes set up PCs for Kids in 1999 as a means of distributing refurbished PCs to underprivileged children, they had little idea they would soon be pushed into the global spotlight.
But pushed they were. In a very uncharacteristic move, Microsoft turned the attention of its legal team to the charity, threatening court action against it on the grounds that PCs for Kids had hard-loaded Microsoft's operating system without checking the licensing validity.
Microsoft was working off a complaint to its anti-piracy hotline that the charity was using unlicensed versions of the operating system.
The subsequent debate captured the attention of the global IT community. Since the battle began in July, public criticism has flown hard and fast against Microsoft for -bullying" the charity, while PCs for Kids has been inundated by statements of support from individuals and organisations.
According to a statement by PCs for Kids, the Bayes' have been overwhelmed by the amount of feedback and congratulatory remarks they have received throughout the last month. Therresa Bayes believes that -[Microsoft] missed their Kodak moment and decided to turn their back on the kids, [now] they have to put up with the public outcry."
Microsoft failed to respond to requests for comment by press time.
Ugly incident.
Microsoft should not have tried to, what effectively meant, a redirection of donations to Bill's pocket!
People who donated, did donate for the benefit of the kids, not for the benefit of the worlds richest individual.
After all, presumably he had already been paid for the licenses when the machines were first bought. Ergo Bill did not suffer any financial loss.
Apart form that, they do have very strange licensing I must confess.
Then they tried a smelly proposition which was designed to effectively bypass the charity, make the charity appear in the public eye as criminals.
The aim of this move was to undermine the charities reputation, thus noone would support them in the future and the charity would simply cease operations and the kids would have been the onces who felt the consequenses.
Microsoft are completely out of touch with the sentiments of the general population.
They might have the law on their site, technically, however in my book a wrong is still a wrong.
MS seems to think it is quite acceptable to send in the lawyers to do the heavy beatings.
I for one will in future evaluate with great care if a job can be done without purchasing anything form Microsoft, even if it might mean an initial adaptation.