Re: Not "Satanism;" realism.

["Eric M. Bennett" <ericb@pobox.com>]

Stan Johnson wrote:

>Based on what I've seen related about the startup of M$, Bill Gates
>did not start with 'zero' by any stretch of the imagination. He had
>affluent, well-connected parents, who gave him an 'in' at IBM, which
>was itself restrained from using its doubtless greater wealth as it might
>have, by antitrust action.

Gates has also said that--despite his parents' wealth--his parents didn't
give him a big wad of cash, and that he won't give his children a big wad
of cash either.

The idea that antitrust action protected a small company--Microsoft--from a
larger IBM should not be a surprise.  That's what antitrust is supposed to
do: protect a small business from predation by a larger adversary with much
deeper pockets.  I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.

>As I understand it, it was the tremendous presence of IBM as mfr of
>the PC that gave him his burst into the market. If it had not been for
>his family wealth/connections, and IBM's massive market presence, he
>would have likely been just another squeeky wannabe.

Having connections wouldn't have done Gates any good if he didn't have some
IP to sell.  If Gates hadn't gotten the contract, who else was there?
Kildall and Paterson.  Whether or not they would have had the savvy to turn
their software into a huge fortune in Gates' absence is something we'll
never know (the common view would probably be that Kildall would not have,
but IIRC Kildall disputes the story about him being out joyriding in his
private plane when the IBM folks paid a visit to his house).  But I don't
think either of them started life with a fortune either.




--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University, Field of Biochemistry, 377 Olin Chemistry Lab

We have increased our prices over the last 10 years [while]
other component prices have come down and continue to come down.
-Joachim Kempin, Senior Vice President, Microsoft Corp.