RE: Edison

[Mitch Stone <mstone@vc.net>]

--- From a message sent by P.A. Petricone on 1/3/99 8:32 AM ---

>Not lazy, obsessively driven. There is nothing wrong with that if it is a 
>conscious decision and not a conditioned response.

Whatever that means... I'm not sure I can say when "obsessively driven" 
becomes a "conditioned response." And personally, I can't say I've ever 
met anyone who was both obsessive and lazy. 

Incidentally, I took Brett's advice and researched Edison over the 
weekend. Sorry Brett -- I did not find any substantial evidence to 
support your allegation that Edison conducted his business in a fashion 
comparable to Bill Gates. 

One thing is certain: in monetary terms, Gates would still be considered 
the far more successful industrialist even if he'd sold out entirely 10 
years ago. After an entire lifetime, Edison left an estate worth $12 
million, not a huge fortune even for the 1930s. He was bailed out a few 
times by Henry Ford, a man very much Edison's junior, and one who 
regarded Edison as his mentor.

As I say, his business acumen was quite limited. On any number of 
occasions, Edison plowed on with his own ideas without regard to the 
activities of his competition, and much to his detriment. Because of this 
he eventually lost out in phonographs, motion pictures and electric power 
generation. Not a great record. Also, many ideas he pursued with great 
enthusiasm led to nothing for Edison, but were revived later by others 
(such as poured concrete construction). 

Edison was hardly the relentless master business strategist/monopolist we 
see with Gates. Whatever else you might think about him, Edison was quite 
a different sort of animal.

Mitch Stone
mstone@vc.net