First of all, Bill Gates was the son of a very wealthy Seattle attorney, which is why he had the money to go to Harvard, start Microsoft, get involved with IBM. It is well-known that MS-DOS was vaporware, ie, it was sold to IBM before real work was even begun.

Microsoft purchased QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System), a ripoff of CP/M (proven in court) from Seattle Computers for next to nothing and set out to finish it up. Unfortunately, Microsoft didn't have the skills required for operating systems, so IBM had to do much of the finish work just to get the PC out the door.

Over the years, Microsoft became infamous at stealing ideas from and destoying a long list of victims, the largest include:
* Netscape - by bundling Internet Explorer browser with the Windows 95 operating system.
* Real Networks - by bundling Windows Media Player into Windows 98.
* WordPerfect, Lotus, Ashton-Tate - with the collaboration of the Office and Windows group to make Word and Excel superior.
* Digital Research - Windows 3.1 was made incompatible with DR-DOS 6.0 intentionally.
* Borland - by enticing their star Delphi programmers to work for Microsoft.
* Stac - by copying Stacker and bundling compression into MS-DOS.
* Novell - by making NT connectivity simpler for Windows and DOS PC's.

The birth of Linux and Open-Source are largely thanks to the technical communities opinions of Microsoft, as are the prevalence of computer viruses.

In sharp contrast, Google, since its first search engine, has been providing solutions to users for free. The tremendous openess in the company, along with their motto "Don't be evil", has also given them a squeaky clean public image.

With their massive cash and power, Google would easily crush any competition in any field. Yet Google's acqusition strategy has been to reward innovation, rather than destroy it.

You may go to milanoo.com, they sell not only fashion wedding dresses but some elegant bridesmaid dresses and cute flower girl dresses.At the same time you also find A-line wedding dress for you.Please belive me that is a good choice.

Different studies show different survival rates of family firms.
* 24-40% are passed from the first to the second generation.
* 11-15% are passed to the third generation.
* Only 1-6% are passed to the fouth generation.

Transition for any organization is difficult, because so much of an organization depends on the leadership. Successful organizations with well-respected leaders have especially difficulty finding deserving successors.

Resentment is the key factor for failure in multi-generational businesses. Whether inside or outside of work, family members simply know too much about each other. Add to that the inability to change organizational roles, and you've got a very tricky road to navigate.