Is the Bill Gates Foundation following Microsoft's monopolizing path?

This morning BBC reported the European Commission imposed a whopping 1.4 billion fine against Microsoft for "defying sanctions imposed on it for anti-competative behaviour". Microsoft has continually has had to defend itself often over the past few years against charges of engaging in unfair and monopolizing business practices.

So it was interesting to open up this week's edition of the Economist and read a story questioning if the Bill Gates Foundation is having a negative influence on research into killer diseases like Malaria by attracting all the best scientists and therefore quashing independent thought.

The main critic of the Gates Foundation is Arata Kochi, the chief malaria fighter for the World Health Organization (WHO). He charged the charity was unintentionally marring the process of peer review because many researches were differing to Gates Foundation priorities in order to compete for funding. A second charge is that the Gates Foundation focuses more on science and technology research than improving actual health systems in developing countries.

It is interesting to see this charge leveled against the Gates Foundation by the World Health Organization, who has a poor record of fight malaria. The Economist says "a big new non-government organization, crashing into the jungle like a young elephant, is bound to cause resentment and perhaps to have unintended ripple effects", but argues the Gates Foundation input of new money and ideas is welcome. I agree. The UN agencies have had years to combat some of the developing world's worst crises with minimal results. Perhaps what some of these issues need is a more entreprenuerial approach, despite how monopolistic it might seem. Better a young elephant ready to empower a whole host of innovative new initatives, than a tired one with a questionable track record.