In a good sign that social media is pursuing more effective ways to stop nefarious misuse of their platforms, Twitter decided to open-source their efforts at stopping foreign operatives from manipulating “public” discourse. Continue reading
Are policy makers trying to stop the future of food? Or are they simply asking the new ultra-hyped, venture-backed food companies to earn their seat at the table? Continue reading
Microsoft acquiring GitHub, the largest open-source code repository, brings them full circle to the infamous 1976 open letter by Gates to computer hobbyists who were sharing, not buying, their BASIC software for the Altair. The irony should be savored.
In ’75, Microsoft got its start when Gates and Allen adapted BASIC for the Altair 8800. BASIC was originally written by two Dartmouth professors, who put it in the public domain. As Paul Ceruzzi wrote in A History of Modern Computing:
“with its skillful combination of features taken from Dartmouth and from the Digital Equipment Corporation, [BASIC] was the key to Gates’ and Allen’s success in establishing a personal computer software industry.”In 1981, MS-DOS, Microsoft’s operating system for the IBM PC, was acquired for $75,000 from the tiny Seattle Computer Products (who themselves borrowed it from Digital Research’s CP/M).
That wasn’t the last of Microsoft’s creative pursuits.
Microsoft Word was originally written by Xerox PARC engineers as Bravo (but never marketed); it became a Microsoft product when Microsoft hired one of its original authors, Charles Simonyi, away from PARC.
Excel was derived from Visicalc by Software Arts, and from Lotus.
And the graphical user environment that is Windows first appeared at PARC in the Alto personal computer, and then in the Apple Macintosh, before becoming Microsoft’s flagship product.
The world is powered by building on and recombining what has come before. Too often, where we stand on this fundamental creative process depends on whether we profits from creating or defending our innovations.
I wrote yesterday on the race to the bottom — how corporations play states, and even cities, off one another in pursuit of the most lucrative benefits. At the same time, they complain about the burdensome taxes and regulations of California. But, as my colleague Martin Kenney so nicely notes in a recent column, California seems to be holding its own in spite of playing hard to get.
The New York Times has written several great pieces on incentives state and local governments use to attract companies. Their goal: to bring new jobs. The outcome: as game theory would predict, a classic race to the bottom where everyone who plays loses. Except, of course, the corporations. The reason: you don’t want the kind of corporate love money can buy.
Proposition 37, the Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative, is on the November ballot here in California and the outcome will shape the path of innovation in food and agriculture for decades to come. Continue reading