[Daniel_LaFleur]

For those that do not understand corporate America, let me state a few things.

Corporations are not in business to help FIRST or any other group. They are not in business to give anyone gainful employment. They are not in business to be good corporate citizens.

They ARE in buisiness to make money for their shareholders or owners. Any buisiness that forgets this is generally not in business for long.

They make their money by dominating (ar attempting to) their chosen markets. Microsoft is no exception to this. In this case they see a potential emerging market that they are well suited to be a major player in. At the same time they get to appear as being a good corporate citizen by helping the students learn and be creative. For Microsoft, this is a win-win situation.

Should we question Microsofts motivations when accepting their charity? Absolutely, just as we should question EVERY doners motivation. BAE, Microsoft, MIT, NASA, Parker, Bimba, Andy-Mark, Small Parts, Etc they all have motivation to support FIRST ... and we, as the recipiants of that charity are obliged to question that motivation.

Is Microsoft just being charitable by supporting the Seattle regional? No, getting their name on the regional gives them name recognition in the robotics emerging market. Does that mean that we should not accept their charity? Again no. As long as we understand their motivations, and those motivations do not stand counter to our beliefs in FIRST, then both the goals of FIRST and the goals of Microsoft can be met. Win-Win.