The use of the word "loopholes" indicates that Microsoft is complying with the law. The word "loopholes" also implies that Microsoft's actions aren't within the intent of the law, but the article provides no explanation on the intent of the law. So this article is an unfounded and unbalanced attack on Microsoft, no more interesting than saying "Microsoft is evil!".
I am curious about the senate committee choosing to single our Microsoft and HP in their attach, when there is ample evidence to suggest that so many other well known companies are engaging in similar practices. In 5 minutes, I came up with articles from major papers documenting 3 of the biggest companies in the US using similar practices...
Comments
The use of the word "loopholes" indicates that Microsoft is complying with the law. The word "loopholes" also implies that Microsoft's actions aren't within the intent of the law, but the article provides no explanation on the intent of the law. So this article is an unfounded and unbalanced attack on Microsoft, no more interesting than saying "Microsoft is evil!".
I am curious about the senate committee choosing to single our Microsoft and HP in their attach, when there is ample evidence to suggest that so many other well known companies are engaging in similar practices. In 5 minutes, I came up with articles from major papers documenting 3 of the biggest companies in the US using similar practices...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strate... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-sho... http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/04/amazon-tax-...