4 ms·

Bell Labs was special in that (a) they were building the largest system known to mankind at the time (an effort only rivaled by Manhattan snd Apollo projects) w

Bell Labs was special in that (a) they were building the largest system known to mankind at the time (an effort only rivaled by Manhattan snd Apollo projects) where they (b) couldn't use standard components but had to invent every piece by themselves, from the cables to amplifiers to satellites and lasers. Furthermore they were (c) very special in that they helped the government on certain projects like Manhattan, got a decades-long minopoly in return, and had to make their patent portfolio publicly available. In other words they were a semi-public organization with a very well-defined goal, that of building and optimizing the telephony system. Only when it became clear that a monopoly was no longer needed due to advances in technology did Bell lose its privileges, and with it Bell Labs started to wither. It does seem to be a pattern that companies that have created monopolies tend to use their excess money to start showing behaviors of a public service. Namely the research departments of Xerox, IBM, Microsoft, Google and now facebook all come from current or former (quasi-)monopolies.

rjdevereux 10y ago
Peter Thiel wrote an article along these lines.. http://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-losers-1410535536 http://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-l... "A monopoly like Google is different. Since it doesn't have to worry about competing with anyone, it has wider latitude to care about its workers, its products and its impact on the wider world. Google's motto—"Don't be evil"—is in part a branding ploy, but it is also characteristic of a kind of business that is successful enough to take ethics seriously without jeopardizing its own existence. In business, money is either an important thing or it is everything. Monopolists can afford to think about things other than making money; non-monopolists can't"
- koalaman 10y ago
  But Google had its culture before it got rich didn't it? There are also a lot of small tech companies like 37 signals and fog creak that try to be ethical and and treat their employees well. I don't think thiel could argue that they are monopolies. Nor frankly do I buy that Google is a monopoly. But that's beside the point.

rjdevereux 10y ago

Peter Thiel wrote an article along these lines.. http://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-losers-1410535536 http://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-l... "A monopoly like Google is different. Since it doesn't have to worry about competing with anyone, it has wider latitude to care about its workers, its products and its impact on the wider world. Google's motto—"Don't be evil"—is in part a branding ploy, but it is also characteristic of a kind of business that is successful enough to take ethics seriously without jeopardizing its own existence. In business, money is either an important thing or it is everything. Monopolists can afford to think about things other than making money; non-monopolists can't"

koalaman 10y ago
But Google had its culture before it got rich didn't it? There are also a lot of small tech companies like 37 signals and fog creak that try to be ethical and and treat their employees well. I don't think thiel could argue that they are monopolies. Nor frankly do I buy that Google is a monopoly. But that's beside the point.