🚀 go-pugleaf

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).

For whatever reasons, AT&T didn't succeed at computers.