These guys were the original circuit guys. :)

Thanks for the link.. I'm listening to the documentary on and off when I have a chance in the background at work. The beginning sounded like the intro to a pseudoscience show about UFOs, but the first 10 minutes was good-- not woo-woo.

Mephesdus, Rozar,

Good exchange.

I have been reading this thread with some interest also. One thing that I think is also important to keep in mind is that the market works eventually and restrains even these moguls unless the government interferes with or hampers the cycle (and always has to varying degree). For instance: Rockefeller's oil and pipelines hurt Vanderbilt's rail business. Edison's electric light-bulb was what beat down Rockefeller's virtual kerosene monopoly for lighting, after his kerosene production destroyed the whale oil market and probably saved several species from extinction. After that Edison was knocked down a few rungs by Westinghouse and Tesla... Creative destruction works. Rozar said “We just need to remember that we fight things of this nature by limiting the governments ability to act on behalf of a business." Well, yes, but we don't always need the government to step in and make it hard on businesses because we fear a monopoly either. In fact government should stay out of businesses business, unless a case can be brought of criminal activity (collusion, bribery, injury, etc.). It should act to protect start-ups and foster competition for those large companies but it doesn't (I don't mean offering seed money [Solyndra!]). More often than not the unintended consequences of government action end up making/picking winners and losers and almost always the consumers are among the losers. The cronyism, patronage, and buying of politicians is an example of the wrong way to run a government or a market economy. There will always be unscrupulous men who want to get ahead not by competing, but by government assistance, though it may be brought about as easily by punishing the competition as by rewarding the crony for his donations with contracts or favorable laws. Naturally, there will always be some unscrupulous men in office all too happy to take a kickback and interfere in the market using any artifice they can imagine and package for the "greater good", (often with taxpayer money) when in fact they mean their own good. We should expect more from our politicians since we get to screen them and hire them than we do from the businessman, however the slant always seems to favor and excuse the politician while blaming the businessman. The politician has the advantage; he has the power and the means to use the force of law, and often the ear of the media. The greatest threat is not the robber baron but the politician who facilitates him. This in no way is an excuse for the excesses or unscrupulous tactics of some of the so called “robber barons”.
Respectfully,
O.A.

I was going to jump in this conversation, but you guys both covered what I was going to say.
The only thing I'd add is this wasn't exactly a one was bad the other good kind of thing. They both let their ego get in the way of both science and invention. for instance, many of Tesla's later inventions were based on dubious science. For example the harmonics stuff is dubious. Lighting at a distance. The idea he beat Marconi at wireless communication is dubious, although I am not sure he personally made that claim-but his supporters have.
I think that what causes the most harm is when the enterprise uses legislation to their advantage. Jobs was definitely guilty of this as was Gates in lobbying for laws that make it more difficult of the small inventor to succeed. . Carnegie and Rockefeller were guilty/hypocritical of manipulating tariffs to their advantage and the disadvantage of competitors. Those areas are where the most damage can be done.

Of course you reject unfettered capitalism, since it gave us the the most successful nation n history.

The results do not match your projections.

Your first link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MaJeW4XB... makes a mockery of your argument.

Your second link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qzbNTRxV... was obviously a preschool project.

Want to try again to explain how we got to where we are?

I feel there are many in business who thrive on competition in the early days, arrive at the front of the pack, and then lose their interest in the competition that comes about from continuous improvement to maintain their lead. They instead seek to maintain their position by political pull and other various tactics. They may still be in business, but they are not the "businessman" that Rand is talking about anymore.

Have you ever considered that a real life Rearden doesn't exist?

And that Bill Gates could be as close as it gets?

Gates has made many middle class folks millionaires, including one of his early secretaries. Not to mention that he gives virtual fortunes to charities....

Have you read the Innovators Dilemma or Innovators Solution? These books talk about the cycle of commoditization and decomodiatiztion. When a technology is new, the components are integrated. As it matures and commoditizes, it becomes modular.

I wonder if this is the case with OSs. Computers are appliances that can do many things. Embedded computers, say those that control the fuel/air mixture in an engine, are more reliable but only do one thing. Personal computers were a disruptive innovation, making computing accessible to a market for whom it was previously too complicated. The way to do that is with an OS tightly partnered with the uP vender (the Wintel alliance) and applications that are made by the same vender as the OS. This seems like the OS vender using its position anti-competitively to control the application market, but maybe it worked out that way b/c personal computers were a disruptive innovation (brought a technology to a new market) and benefited from more integration / less modularization.

As you can tell I'm fuzzy on these concepts. I'm a tech expert trying to learn the business side. My main point is I'm not sure that Micro$oft's and Apple's success is owed as heavily to anti-competitive practices as it seems.