I guess I'm biased, since my wife and I met on a Microsoft-sponsored cruise, but I just don't buy this. I worked for Microsoft for six years. During that time I never saw even one instance of someone being pressured to do anything immoral or illegal. But I did experience many instances where a coworker was disciplined for crossing that line, and many more where my coworkers were offered sex or drugs by other companies, and refused based on MS policy (and, presumably, their own virtue).
So I think it's highly unlikely that any MS employee actively discriminated against a vendor based on willingness to participate in a wild party. At most, there might be a dynamic similar to the "urinal meetings" that are blamed for sexual discrimination: if deals were cut at the party, and a vendor that would have been part of the deal otherwise was excluded because they didn't attend, then that would explain it. Explain, but not excuse--it's still grounds for termination under MS policy.
My guess is that if there's any truth at all to these allegations, heads will roll. If the people responsible are low-level employees, they will be fired; if they're high level, they'll be relieved of their responsibility and put onto a "special project" until they quit of their own accord.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ian Lewis.
Seems highly unlikely to me
I guess I'm biased, since my wife and I met on a Microsoft-sponsored cruise, but I just don't buy this. I worked for Microsoft for six years. During that time I never saw even one instance of someone being pressured to do anything immoral or illegal. But I did experience many instances where a coworker was disciplined for crossing that line, and many more where my coworkers were offered sex or drugs by other companies, and refused based on MS policy (and, presumably, their own virtue).
So I think it's highly unlikely that any MS employee actively discriminated against a vendor based on willingness to participate in a wild party. At most, there might be a dynamic similar to the "urinal meetings" that are blamed for sexual discrimination: if deals were cut at the party, and a vendor that would have been part of the deal otherwise was excluded because they didn't attend, then that would explain it. Explain, but not excuse--it's still grounds for termination under MS policy.
My guess is that if there's any truth at all to these allegations, heads will roll. If the people responsible are low-level employees, they will be fired; if they're high level, they'll be relieved of their responsibility and put onto a "special project" until they quit of their own accord.