🚀 go-pugleaf

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 1:39:07 PM UTC-5, Dan Espen wrote:
> 
>>> AT&T's management did not destroy Bell Labs.  It was destroyed by the
>>> lawyers who forced the breakup of AT&T.
> 
>> Actually, the breakup was proposed by AT&T.
>> They may or may not have lost the anti-trust suit.
>> At the time, I thought not.
>> Within the company, the story was that AT&T would be free to enter
>> the computer maker market thereby becoming the next big thing.
> 
> IMHO, at the time AT&T made the compromise decision (circa 1980),
> their path seemed generally pretty reasonable, except, perhaps,
> for keeping Western Electric.  
> 
> I think given the atmosphere of the time--there was a lot of anti-Bell
> feeling among regulators, legislatures, Judge Greene*, DOJ, and 
> newcomers who wanted a piece of the market, that AT&T was doomed 
> in court.
> 
> * Oslin's book says Greene was clearly out to 'get' the Bell System--
> he thought it was an evil monopoly and he sought a reform agenda.
> 
> 
>> Ridiculous.
> 
> Wanting to get into the computer business was certainly a good
> decision by AT&T.  The company had outstanding talent and 
> experience in electronics and software.  It had the name.
> It had Bell Labs and W/E to develop and manufacture stuff.  
> Unfortunately, like so many other large American companies,
> it just didn't 'click' in the computer marketplace.
> 
> Remember, IBM was terrified in the 1950s of big players
> like RCA and General Electric who had so much more than
> IBM did, yet IBM prevailed.
> 
> Indeed, at the time, everyone thought AT&T would give IBM
> stiff competition in computers (and IBM would give AT&T
> competition in communications).

Everyone was trying to get into everyone else's business, AT&T and Xerox
into computers, IBM into copiers and communications (SBS and Rolm), Xerox
into communications (Western Union), Kodak into copiers, etc.

-- 
Pete