Skip to main content

$18,048,000 Bill for China

Apparently Microsoft is being accused of abuse in China because it is cracking down on illegal copies of its software. [1]

One excerpt from the article sums up the mentality in China:

More than 80% of the 60,000 Internet users participating in an online survey conducted by Tencent, one of the largest Internet service portals in China, protested the campaign. They complained that it was the high price of a legitimate copy of XP that had forced them to turn to counterfeits. A genuine copy of XP Pro is priced at $376 (2,578 yuan) in the Chinese market.

So if you don't like the price of candy at the local grocery store, you should just steal it. Why should you pay their fair market price when you could just take it and then claim that they forced you to steal it.

China is the single largest offender of global information espionage and currency manipulation. On all of the computer systems that I monitor daily, the vast majority of elicit hacker activity originates from IP addresses in China. Never once have I ever received any response from any complaint that I have filed at a Chinese ISP.

Since China is a communist regime, Microsoft has a legitimate complaint against the government. China has allowed its people to illegally acquire Microsoft's products without any reprocussions, therefore China is subsidizing the cost of said software for its citizens. In short, China owes Microsoft the $376 per copy of illegally installed software, which comes out to $18,048,000 (48,000 users x $376).

A Chinese attorney is quoted in the article asking for $1 Billion in fines for Microsoft. To that, I say, okay. After China pays Microsoft $105,280,000,000 for lost revenue to software piracy. That's assuming 20% of the country are using computers that are running Windows illegally. Even if only 80% of those 20% are illegal, then the fine owed to Microsoft would be $84,224,000,000. I'd be happy to pay $1 Billion to make $84 Billion.

[1] http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/ "Microsoft Hacking Computer in China"

Popular posts from this blog

Stock Option Debt Income

The 2024 Presidential election has brought out a topic of interest that seems to have been perverted. There is this "Taxing Unrealized Capital Gains" [1] movement that is being falsely attributed to Vice President Harris. Clearly, this is a change in the revenue code that was designed by someone in office long before VP Harris was in office. My money is on Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. What is this change in the revenue code though? For that you have to understand what Silicon Valley zillionaires are doing with their stock options. Many of these people in this special economic area have huge discounts on stock prices for companies that are not public yet, or are public and can not be sold [2]. To be fair to these holders of equity, banks allow them to finance debt using leverage against those options. If you hold an option that is worth $5M then a bank might lend you a share of that value, thus realizing a debt against the option [3]. This is a fair debt instrument and...

A Self Defeating Race False Narrative

2020 is the year of the pandemic. The SARS-Cov-2 (Covid19) virus has rampaged across the planet infecting 4,893,136 [1] people by May 20, 2020. At this time, of those 4.8M people, 323,256 people have perished from complications that arise from the infection. Arising out of this pandemic has been a narrative about non-white ethnic groups being disproportionately affected by the infection [6,7,8]. A narrative that conditions people to believe that they are perpetually victims only creates a "collective victimhood" [4,5] in that group. This "collective victimhood" costs its members millions in unrealized potential, sends them cowering from social interactions that would otherwise benefit them, and ultimately creates an environment that perpetuates itself. Let's try to dispel that false narrative and deal just with data. I pulled my data from the CDC [9] looking at mortality only. The mortality data from CDC contains per-state mortality rates on a per-infectio...

Number of Primes

Anderson's Theorem (a) The number of primes in [1,n] is no more than 2+floor(n/2). The probability of n being prime when n is not prime is 1/2 - see Dasgupta,Papadimitriou,Vazirani "Algorithms" page 26. Therefore, the E(pi(n)) is n/2. (b) There does not exist another set of adjacent primes other than {1,2,3} 5: 2 + floor(5/2) = 2 + 2 = 4:=> {1,2,3,5} : 4 <= 4 7: 2 + floor(7/2) = 2 + 3 = 5 => {1,2,3,5,7} : 5 <= 5 11: 2 + floor(11/2) = 2 + 5 = 7 => {1,2,3,5,7,11} 6 <= 7 26: 2 + floor(26/2) = 15 => {1,2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23} : 10 <= 15 Lagrange's Theorem is Inaccurate Lagrange's theorem about primes states that pi(x) is the number of primes <= x. The pi(x) is approximately x/ln(x). He postulated that the lim of pi(x)/(x/lnx) as x-> infinity was 1. This is incorrect. if the number of primes is bounded by n/2 then refactoring and reducing Lagrange's Theorem results in the lim of ln(x) as x approaches infinity. This is alwa...