No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
1–10 of 528 posts
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#2Startup = disruption = threat to existing control.
If you love control and have control, why would you want to create fertile ground for startups?
(This was meant as devil's advocate, not my personal point of view).
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#3> In the 20th century, U.S. companies put their excess profits into corporate research labs. Basic research in the U.S. was done in at Dupont, Bell Labs, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, Kodak, GE, et al. This changed in 1982, when the Securities and Exchange Commission ruled that it was legal for companies to buy their own stock (reducing the number of shares available to the public and inflating their stock price.) Very quickly Basic Science in corporate research all but disappeared. Companies focused on Applied Research to maximize shareholder value. In its place, Theory and Basic research is now done in research universities.
I'm not seeing how you get from share buybacks to a shift in priorities in corporate research. If there's a fundamental reason why it can't be done now how it was before the 80's it's not that.
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#4Startup = disruption = threat to existing control. If you love control and have control, why would you want to create fertile ground for startups? (This was meant as devil's advocate, not my personal point of view).
That's short term thinking.
You can't stop innovation across the planet, you will lose control over time as adversaries continue to innovate and subsume antiquated control structures.
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#5> In the 20th century, U.S. companies put their excess profits into corporate research labs. Basic research in the U.S. was done in at Dupont, Bell Labs, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, Kodak, GE, et al. This changed in 1982, when the Securities and Exchange Commission ruled that it was legal for companies to buy their own stock (reducing the number of shares available to the public and inflating their stock price.) Very quickly B…
Why not?
Suddenly they had a more lucrative was to spend their money, so they did.
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#6[deleted]
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#7Startup = disruption = threat to existing control. If you love control and have control, why would you want to create fertile ground for startups? (This was meant as devil's advocate, not my personal point of view).
That's short term thinking. You can't stop innovation across the planet, you will lose control over time as adversaries continue to innovate and subsume antiquated control structures.
Oh I completely agree.
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#8> In the 20th century, U.S. companies put their excess profits into corporate research labs. Basic research in the U.S. was done in at Dupont, Bell Labs, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, Kodak, GE, et al. This changed in 1982, when the Securities and Exchange Commission ruled that it was legal for companies to buy their own stock (reducing the number of shares available to the public and inflating their stock price.) Very quickly B…
Nothing against research universities as good stuff does occur there, but it just seems like it was such a a huge loss seeing those corporate labs disappear. I think it helps to have scientists and engineers closer to the problem and who don't have to spend a huge amount of their time writing grants and training grad students.
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#9this is great except nobody who should read this article is reading it
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#10> In the 20th century, U.S. companies put their excess profits into corporate research labs. Basic research in the U.S. was done in at Dupont, Bell Labs, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, Kodak, GE, et al. This changed in 1982, when the Securities and Exchange Commission ruled that it was legal for companies to buy their own stock (reducing the number of shares available to the public and inflating their stock price.) Very quickly B…
Why not? Suddenly they had a more lucrative was to spend their money, so they did.
Because before buybacks there were dividends. Did the difference between buybacks and dividends really make the difference between doing basic research and not?