| Xerox company sold [message #362247] |
Thu, 01 February 2018 20:07  |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, Xerox said that, after 115 years as an independent
business, it would combine operations with Fujifilm Holdings of
Japan. The deal signaled the end of a company that was once an
American corporate powerhouse. “Xerox is the poster child for
monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition
to a new generation of technology,” said David B. Yoffie, a
professor at the Harvard Business School. The move offers a
stark reminder that no matter how high a company may fly, it
is still vulnerable to the next big breakthrough. Xerox joins
once formidable tech companies like Kodak and BlackBerry that
lost the innovation footrace.
full article at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/business/dealbook/xerox-f ujifilm.html
|
|
|
|
| Re: Xerox company sold [message #362251 is a reply to message #362247] |
Thu, 01 February 2018 21:00  |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> On Wednesday, Xerox said that, after 115 years as an independent
> business, it would combine operations with Fujifilm Holdings of
> Japan. The deal signaled the end of a company that was once an
> American corporate powerhouse. “Xerox is the poster child for
> monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition
> to a new generation of technology,” said David B. Yoffie, a
> professor at the Harvard Business School. The move offers a
> stark reminder that no matter how high a company may fly, it
> is still vulnerable to the next big breakthrough. Xerox joins
> once formidable tech companies like Kodak and BlackBerry that
> lost the innovation footrace.
>
> full article at:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/business/dealbook/xerox-f ujifilm.html
GE Just Signaled The Next Crisis (And Nobody's Paying Attention)
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-30/ge-just-signaled-n ext-crisis-and-nobodys-paying-attention
Welch would regularly beat Wall Street's earnings estimates by a penny
or two. And he was named manager of the century by Fortune Magazine for
his ability to pump GE's stock.
And while Welch is lauded for his "six sigma" management, it seems his
real talent was using GE's many divisions to move assets around and
goose earnings to hit short-term numbers.
The creative accounting caught up with GE in 2009, when the company paid
$50 million to settle SEC allegations it had used improper accounting
methods to boost numbers in 2002 and 2003.
Among the strategies GE used to make its 2003 numbers was selling
railroad cars to banks, with side deals and verbal promises to assure
the banks they couldn't lose money on the deal.
Enron used the same trick in 1999 when it "sold" Nigerian barges to
Merrill Lynch, allowing the company to fake a $12 million profit.
GE's $31 billion pension nightmare
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/18/investing/ge-pension-immelt- breakup/index.html?iid=EL
Not only does GE have the largest pension deficit among S&P 500
companies, that deficit is $11 billion worse than the next closest
company, according to Dow Jones S&P Indices. (The $31 billion figure is
from the end of 2016. Fresher numbers haven't been released.)
Age of Greed: The Triumph of Finance and the Decline of America, 1970 to
the Present
http://www.amazon.com/Age-Greed-Triumph-Financ…/…/B004DE PF6I
pg187/loc3667-70: When Welch took over GE in 1980, it was the ninth most
profitable company in the nation. Now it was first, second, or
third. Shareholder value reached $500 billion, more than any other
company in America. The stock price was Welch’s personal measure of
achievement, though he later denied it. The boom of the late 1990s on
balance sent the wrong message to American managers: cut costs rather
than innovate. Despite its appeal, In Search of Excellence had little
true staying power.
pg191/loc3754-60: In 1977, GE Capital, as it was later called, generated
$67 million in revenue with only seven thousand employees, while
appliances that year generated $100 million and required 47,000
workers. He hired better managers and supplied GE Credit with a lot of
capital, and he had built-in scale—meaning large size—due to GE’s assets
size and triple-A credit rating. In time, GE Capital became a
full-fledged bank, financing all kinds of commercial loans, issuing
mortgages and other consumer loans, and becoming a leader in
mortgage-backed securities. By the time Welch left in 2000, GE Capital’s
earnings had grown by some eighty times to well more than $5 billion,
while the number of its employees did not even double. It provided half
of GE’s profits.
pg192/loc3777-79: In a few brief sentences, Welch had defined a new age
for big business. He introduced short-run profit management to GE,
understanding that stock market investors trusted little so well as
rising profits every calendar quarter. It became the best indication of
a company’s quality, making it stand out in good times and bad.
pg199/loc3909-13: GE Capital also enabled GE to manage its quarterly
earnings, engaging in the last couple of weeks of every calendar quarter
in various trades that could push earnings up on the last day or two
before the quarter's end. It was an open secret on Wall Street that this
was how Welch consistently kept quarterly earnings rising for years at a
time. "Though earnings management is a no-no among good governance
types," wrote two CNNMoney financial editors, "the company has never
denied doing it, and GE Capital is the perfect mechanism."
pg200/loc3925-30: The CNNMoney writers got it slightly wrong. GE was not
exactly like the American economy. It was even more dependent on
financial services. In the early 2000s, GE was again riding a financial
wave, the subprime mortgage lending boom; it had even bought a subprime
mortgage broker. GE borrowed still more against equity to exploit the
remarkable opportunities, its triple-A rating giving it a major
competitive advantage. By 2008, the central weakness of the Welch
business strategy, its dependence on financial overspeculation, became
ominously clear. GE's profits plunged during the credit crisis and its
stock price fell by 60 percent. GE Capital, the main source of its
success for twenty-five years, now reported enormous losses
pg200/loc3935-41: He mostly stopped trying to create great new products,
hence the reduction in R&D. He took the heart out of his businesses, he
did not put it in, as he had always hoped to do. What made his strategy
possible, and fully shaped it, was the rising stock market--and the new
ideology that praised free markets even as they failed.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Xerox company sold [message #362262 is a reply to message #362247] |
Thu, 01 February 2018 22:35 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 6:07:52 PM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> “Xerox is the poster child for
> monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition
> to a new generation of technology,” said David B. Yoffie, a
> professor at the Harvard Business School.
I suppose that Xerox could, for example, have used some of the technology it had
in its early laser printers like the 9700, and made a laser printer that was
almost as cheap as the HP LaserJet, but which produced better quality output.
Presumably it was still selling faster and more expensive laser printers to
corporate customers, and didn't want to undermine the market.
IBM, then, is perhaps an example of a company that protected its legacy
mainframe business while not allowing that protection to prevent it from making
money from other markets. Perhaps. But perhaps it just lucked out with the IBM
PC, and in general it made the same mistakes Xerox did most of the time.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Important US technology companies sold to foreigners (was: Xerox company sold) [message #362321 is a reply to message #362247] |
Fri, 02 February 2018 15:47 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:07:51 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, Xerox said that, after 115 years as an independent
> business, it would combine operations with Fujifilm Holdings of
> Japan. The deal signaled the end of a company that was once an
> American corporate powerhouse. “Xerox is the poster child for
> monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition
> to a new generation of technology,” said David B. Yoffie, a
> professor at the Harvard Business School. The move offers a
> stark reminder that no matter how high a company may fly, it
> is still vulnerable to the next big breakthrough. Xerox joins
> once formidable tech companies like Kodak and BlackBerry that
> lost the innovation footrace.
>
> full article at:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/business/dealbook/xerox-f ujifilm.html
Sad. Many great US pioneers in computer technology were recently sold to
foreigners. Bell Labs became French (Alcatel-Lucent) in 2006, now Finnish
(Nokia). They're all finished. :-(
Other US companies went abroad recently (say last 30 years)?
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
an expired license plate means another decoration for your living room wall.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners (was: Xerox company sold) [message #362326 is a reply to message #362321] |
Fri, 02 February 2018 17:25 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:07:51 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, Xerox said that, after 115 years as an independent
>> business, it would combine operations with Fujifilm Holdings of
>> Japan. The deal signaled the end of a company that was once an
>> American corporate powerhouse. “Xerox is the poster child for
>> monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition
>> to a new generation of technology,” said David B. Yoffie, a
>> professor at the Harvard Business School. The move offers a
>> stark reminder that no matter how high a company may fly, it
>> is still vulnerable to the next big breakthrough. Xerox joins
>> once formidable tech companies like Kodak and BlackBerry that
>> lost the innovation footrace.
>>
>> full article at:
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/business/dealbook/xerox-f ujifilm.html
>
> Sad. Many great US pioneers in computer technology were recently sold to
> foreigners. Bell Labs became French (Alcatel-Lucent) in 2006, now Finnish
> (Nokia). They're all finished. :-(
>
> Other US companies went abroad recently (say last 30 years)?
Honeywell -> Bull
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Xerox company sold [message #362340 is a reply to message #362262] |
Fri, 02 February 2018 19:49 |
Rich Alderson
Messages: 489
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 6:07:52 PM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> wrote:
>> "Xerox is the poster child for monopoly technology businesses that cannot
>> make the transition to a new generation of technology," said David B.
>> Yoffie, a professor at the Harvard Business School.
> I suppose that Xerox could, for example, have used some of the technology it
> had in its early laser printers like the 9700, and made a laser printer that
> was almost as cheap as the HP LaserJet, but which produced better quality
> output.
> Presumably it was still selling faster and more expensive laser printers to
> corporate customers, and didn't want to undermine the market.
> IBM, then, is perhaps an example of a company that protected its legacy
> mainframe business while not allowing that protection to prevent it from
> making money from other markets. Perhaps. But perhaps it just lucked out with
> the IBM PC, and in general it made the same mistakes Xerox did most of the
> time.
Then there's that whole "take IBM on head to head inthe computer market" which
cost Xerox dearly in the 1970s. No corporation can sustain the kind of loss
which Xerox did and remain top dog in its core industry.
--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen
|
|
|
|
| Re: Xerox company sold [message #362342 is a reply to message #362340] |
Fri, 02 February 2018 20:41 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 5:49:37 PM UTC-7, Rich Alderson wrote:
> Then there's that whole "take IBM on head to head inthe computer market" which
> cost Xerox dearly in the 1970s. No corporation can sustain the kind of loss
> which Xerox did and remain top dog in its core industry.
And now Oracle is doing the same thing, but against what's left of IBM.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners (was: Xerox company sold) [message #362348 is a reply to message #362321] |
Fri, 02 February 2018 21:39 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 15:47:33 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
<ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:07:51 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, Xerox said that, after 115 years as an independent
>> business, it would combine operations with Fujifilm Holdings of
>> Japan. The deal signaled the end of a company that was once an
>> American corporate powerhouse. Xerox is the poster child for
>> monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition
>> to a new generation of technology, said David B. Yoffie, a
>> professor at the Harvard Business School. The move offers a
>> stark reminder that no matter how high a company may fly, it
>> is still vulnerable to the next big breakthrough. Xerox joins
>> once formidable tech companies like Kodak and BlackBerry that
>> lost the innovation footrace.
>>
>> full article at:
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/business/dealbook/xerox-f ujifilm.html
>
> Sad. Many great US pioneers in computer technology were recently sold to
> foreigners. Bell Labs became French (Alcatel-Lucent) in 2006, now Finnish
> (Nokia). They're all finished. :-(
Bell Labs was killed in 1984. It took a long time to die but that's
when the knife went in. I like to believe that there is a special
Hell for all the lawyers involved in that action.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners (was: Xerox company sold) [message #362349 is a reply to message #362326] |
Fri, 02 February 2018 21:47 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 15:25:34 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:07:51 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, Xerox said that, after 115 years as an independent
>>> business, it would combine operations with Fujifilm Holdings of
>>> Japan. The deal signaled the end of a company that was once an
>>> American corporate powerhouse. Xerox is the poster child for
>>> monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition
>>> to a new generation of technology, said David B. Yoffie, a
>>> professor at the Harvard Business School. The move offers a
>>> stark reminder that no matter how high a company may fly, it
>>> is still vulnerable to the next big breakthrough. Xerox joins
>>> once formidable tech companies like Kodak and BlackBerry that
>>> lost the innovation footrace.
>>>
>>> full article at:
>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/business/dealbook/xerox-f ujifilm.html
>>
>> Sad. Many great US pioneers in computer technology were recently sold to
>> foreigners. Bell Labs became French (Alcatel-Lucent) in 2006, now Finnish
>> (Nokia). They're all finished. :-(
>>
>> Other US companies went abroad recently (say last 30 years)?
>
> Honeywell -> Bull
Honeywell sold their informations systems division to Bull. Honeywell
however is now part of Allied Signal, which adopted the name and is
still a huge American company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners (was: Xerox company sold) [message #362376 is a reply to message #362349] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 04:13 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-03, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 15:25:34 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:07:51 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, Xerox said that, after 115 years as an independent
>>>> business, it would combine operations with Fujifilm Holdings of
>>>> Japan. The deal signaled the end of a company that was once an
>>>> American corporate powerhouse. Xerox is the poster child for
>>>> monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition
>>>> to a new generation of technology, said David B. Yoffie, a
>>>> professor at the Harvard Business School. The move offers a
>>>> stark reminder that no matter how high a company may fly, it
>>>> is still vulnerable to the next big breakthrough. Xerox joins
>>>> once formidable tech companies like Kodak and BlackBerry that
>>>> lost the innovation footrace.
>>>>
>>>> full article at:
>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/business/dealbook/xerox-f ujifilm.html
>>>
>>> Sad. Many great US pioneers in computer technology were recently sold to
>>> foreigners. Bell Labs became French (Alcatel-Lucent) in 2006, now Finnish
>>> (Nokia). They're all finished. :-(
>>>
>>> Other US companies went abroad recently (say last 30 years)?
>>
>> Honeywell -> Bull
>
> Honeywell sold their informations systems division to Bull. Honeywell
> however is now part of Allied Signal, which adopted the name and is
> still a huge American company.
>
There have been examples of US copanies recently buying Irish
companies and moving the company name to Ireland. I think the process is
called 'reversing into'. The whole thing is a spurious tax exercise.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners (was: Xerox company sold) [message #362380 is a reply to message #362376] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 07:20 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On 3 Feb 2018 09:13:32 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:
> On 2018-02-03, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 15:25:34 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:07:51 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wednesday, Xerox said that, after 115 years as an independent
>>>> > business, it would combine operations with Fujifilm Holdings of
>>>> > Japan. The deal signaled the end of a company that was once an
>>>> > American corporate powerhouse. ?Xerox is the poster child for
>>>> > monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition
>>>> > to a new generation of technology,? said David B. Yoffie, a
>>>> > professor at the Harvard Business School. The move offers a
>>>> > stark reminder that no matter how high a company may fly, it
>>>> > is still vulnerable to the next big breakthrough. Xerox joins
>>>> > once formidable tech companies like Kodak and BlackBerry that
>>>> > lost the innovation footrace.
>>>> >
>>>> > full article at:
>>>> > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/business/dealbook/xerox-f ujifilm.html
>>>>
>>>> Sad. Many great US pioneers in computer technology were recently sold to
>>>> foreigners. Bell Labs became French (Alcatel-Lucent) in 2006, now Finnish
>>>> (Nokia). They're all finished. :-(
>>>>
>>>> Other US companies went abroad recently (say last 30 years)?
>>>
>>> Honeywell -> Bull
>>
>> Honeywell sold their informations systems division to Bull. Honeywell
>> however is now part of Allied Signal, which adopted the name and is
>> still a huge American company.
>>
>
>
> There have been examples of US copanies recently buying Irish
> companies and moving the company name to Ireland. I think the process is
> called 'reversing into'. The whole thing is a spurious tax exercise.
"Reverse inversion". What's "spurious" about it? US corporate taxes
were ludicrously high--they are less so now but still US companies are
taxed on foreign sales at a much higher level than non-US companies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362403 is a reply to message #362348] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 13:01 |
|
|
Originally posted by: jmreno
On 2/2/2018 6:39 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 15:47:33 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
> <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:07:51 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, Xerox said that, after 115 years as an independent
>>> business, it would combine operations with Fujifilm Holdings of
>>> Japan. The deal signaled the end of a company that was once an
>>> American corporate powerhouse. “Xerox is the poster child for
>>> monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition
>>> to a new generation of technology,” said David B. Yoffie, a
>>> professor at the Harvard Business School. The move offers a
>>> stark reminder that no matter how high a company may fly, it
>>> is still vulnerable to the next big breakthrough. Xerox joins
>>> once formidable tech companies like Kodak and BlackBerry that
>>> lost the innovation footrace.
>>>
>>> full article at:
>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/business/dealbook/xerox-f ujifilm.html
>>
>> Sad. Many great US pioneers in computer technology were recently sold to
>> foreigners. Bell Labs became French (Alcatel-Lucent) in 2006, now Finnish
>> (Nokia). They're all finished. :-(
>
> Bell Labs was killed in 1984. It took a long time to die but that's
> when the knife went in. I like to believe that there is a special
> Hell for all the lawyers involved in that action.
>
Most of Bell Labs was sold to SAIC. Lucent ended up with a small part of
it (and maybe the name).
From: http://techblog.comsoc.org/category/uncategorized/page/64/
______________
A History Lesson
As part of the divestiture of the Bell System in 1983, many AT&T Bells
Labs engineers were transfered to a new company that was to be the
research labs for the seven spun-off RBOCs. Named Bell Communications
Research- or Bellcore for short- the organization was formed January
1,1984. Over the next several years, Bellcore was very effective in
helping their parent companies evaluate, standardize and arcitect new
telecommunications technologies, e.g. ISDN, SMDS, Frame Relay, Software
Defined Network, Intelligent Network, etc. Bellcore’s standards for TL1
– the language of telco network management, and SONET (Synchronous
Optical Network Transport) were implemented by every equipment company
in those market segments.
But as the RBOCs put less of an emphasis on research and developement
there was less need for Bellcore. So the company was sold to Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in 1995. What SAIC was
getting, according to Bellcore’s CEO at the time, was a $650
million-a-year software business and a $350 million-a-year professional
services business. The approval process for the deal was arduous,
passing muster with seven owners and nine state regulatory agencies, so
that the sale was not completed until November 1997.
....
______________
I believe that SAIC also got the right to use all of Bell Lab's patents.
The other reason I know is that I bought a few hundred cheap shares in
Lucent because they said they owned Bell Labs. That was when Lucent
still seemed to a viable company.
After I bought the stock I became suspicious of Lucent's claim and
contacted Lucent's banker who admitted that most of Bell Labs had been
sold to SAIC.
Later, Lucent merged with Alcatel which was also a failing company. The
combination of the two failing companies resulted in a larger (for
awhile) failing company.
With the merger with Nokia it became a larger (for awhile) failing company.
In 2013 Nokia sold its mobile devices division to Microsoft:
http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/03/01/nokias-comeback-expl ained-historic-phone-company-suddenly-making-android-phones/
Its a real mess now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362405 is a reply to message #362402] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 13:39 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 16:18:56 -0000 (UTC), pechter@t61.(none) (William
> Pechter) wrote:
>
>> In article <kq7a7d1sjsqnltmkm789ql5r38s36ecnc9@4ax.com>,
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bell Labs was killed in 1984. It took a long time to die but that's
>>> when the knife went in. I like to believe that there is a special
>>> Hell for all the lawyers involved in that action.
>>
>> Killed, nope. It was suicide.
>>
>> The action was done over time by AT&T's own management.
>
> AT&T's management did not destroy Bell Labs. It was destroyed by the
> lawyers who forced the breakup of AT&T.
Actually, the breakup was proposed by AT&T.
They may or may not have lost the anti-trust suit.
At the time, I thought not.
Within the company, the story was that AT&T would be free to enter
the computer maker market thereby becoming the next big thing.
Ridiculous.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362406 is a reply to message #362380] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 13:52 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> "Reverse inversion". What's "spurious" about it? US corporate taxes
> were ludicrously high--they are less so now but still US companies are
> taxed on foreign sales at a much higher level than non-US companies.
starting in 80s, large companies started to create separate subsidiary
corporations where they could book profits. posterchild were airlines
where they set up ticket selling as separate corporate subsidiary.
Airline operations (with 90% of employees) were operating at break-even
or loss ... and all the profit was booked in the ticket sales
corporation. airline operations could be operating at substantial
loss, even tho the parent company was operating at substantial profit
(ticket sales where all the profit was booked more than offset
losses). Later they could even declare bankruptcy for airline operations
and dump the employee pension plans on the gov.
after turn of century, congress seemed to further loosen definition of
separate corporation. posterchild is large US equipment maker that
manufactures in the US, sells and delivers to companies in the US. They
sent up a distriborship in country where they have negotiated trivial
tax rate. They transfer the (made in the US) equipment to the offshore
distriborship books at cost, which then "sells" to US customers. All
profit is booked in the offshore distriborship even tho equipment is
made in the US, sold to US customers and delivered to US customers.
even tho corparate tax rate was 35%, many large US corporations are
paying 5% or less (or even declaring loss) ... so effective overall
corporate tax revenue was more like 11%.
Gimmick hasn't only been used in US. Many countries have found that
Apple has sent things up that tax revenue as percent of sales in that
country is small single digits (foreign sales issue is mostly
obfuscation and misdirection).
Apple's $85 million tax bill is a fraction of its almost $8 billion
revenue
http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/apples-85-million -tax-bill-is-a-fraction-of-its-almost-8-billion-revenue-2016 0126-gmej0z.html
Apple paid $85 million in Australian income tax last year, despite
making almost $8 billion in local revenue, accounts filed with the
corporate regulator show.
....
Apple's double Irish
Apple has been accused of using a "double Irish sandwich with Dutch
associations" structure that allows it to route profits through Ireland
and significantly reduce tax.
.... snip ...
aka 1% ... process regularly used around the world.
......
posts mentioning tax evasion, tax havens, tax avoidance
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#tax.evasion
lots of leaks ... but not solely limited to tax evasion, tax
advoidance, etc
https://www.icij.org/
luxembourg
https://www.icij.org/investigations/luxembourg-leaks/
panama papers
https://panamapapers.icij.org/
paradise papers
https://www.icij.org/investigations/paradise-papers/
recent GE references:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018.html#19 In Praise of Hierarchy
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018.html#108 GE's $31 billion pension nightmare
financialization destroying US corporate culture starting late 70s &
early 80s
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018.html#25 Trump's Infrastructure Plan Is Actually Pence's--And It's All About Privatization
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018.html#52 How a Misfit Group of Computer Geeks and English Majors Transformed Wall Street
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018.html#104 Tax Cut for Stock Buybacks
|
|
|
|
| Re: Xerox company sold [message #362413 is a reply to message #362342] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 14:29 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 8:41:46 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
>> Then there's that whole "take IBM on head to head inthe computer market" which
>> cost Xerox dearly in the 1970s. No corporation can sustain the kind of loss
>> which Xerox did and remain top dog in its core industry.
>
> And now Oracle is doing the same thing, but against what's left of IBM.
Is IBM in trouble today?
Last I heard, it was buying back a lot of its stock. That inflates
the earnings per share since, since there are fewer shares, but it
is a misleading indicator.
It seems (someone else could explain better) seems to evolved into
a consulting company as opposed to a hardware company. It still
obviously makes the Z series, but it sold off so much of its
hardware line. Does it still have the economy of scale to support
intensive research to keep knocking out improvements to hardware,
as well as staff to maintain the complex operating systems?
I think Unisys tried that route and while Unisys is still around,
isn't it today a tiny fraction of what it once was (especially
considering its parents)?
Comments from anyone familiar with the current situation appreciated!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners (was: Xerox company sold) [message #362414 is a reply to message #362348] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 14:31 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 9:39:54 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>> Sad. Many great US pioneers in computer technology were recently sold to
>> foreigners. Bell Labs became French (Alcatel-Lucent) in 2006, now Finnish
>> (Nokia). They're all finished. :-(
>
> Bell Labs was killed in 1984. It took a long time to die but that's
> when the knife went in. I like to believe that there is a special
> Hell for all the lawyers involved in that action.
Divestiture hurt the U.S. Proponents of Divestiture claimed it
generated improvements and cost-savings, but those things came
about from technology invented at Bell Labs (ironically enough)
and other technical improvements. The marketplace was changing
and even without Divestiture, Bell would've changed along with
it--for instance, customers would've been allowed to own and be
responsible for their own equipment and wiring.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners (was: Xerox company sold) [message #362415 is a reply to message #362404] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 14:38 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 1:31:36 PM UTC-5, John Levine wrote:
>> AT&T's management did not destroy Bell Labs. It was destroyed by the
>> lawyers who forced the breakup of AT&T.
>
> AT&T could have divested Western Electric and kept the operating
> companies and Bell Labs, but made the spectacularly wrong prediction
> that there'd be more money in long distance than in POTS.
AT&T also wrongly predicted that Western Electric would continue to
be profitable. It knew at the time [Alvin Von Auw] that customer
ownership of sets and wiring was no long cost-effective. However,
it probably could not have predicted that W/E's business model of
building equipment strong enough to withstand a nuke attack was no
longer working, and consumers wanted cheap equipment, even if it
meant frequent replacement. That is, consumers would rather have
a cheap crappy $10 phone replaced every year than a solid durable
$40 phone lasting for 40 years. Central office equipment would
no longer be in service for 30-50* years, but relatively short time
as new electronics made old gear obsolete.
* Bell kept some old exchanges, such as panel in NYC, in service
far longer than planned, with resultant poor service, partly due to
the delay in developing and deploying ESS. Bell also kept step-by-step
in service longer but failed to maintain it adequately, again causing
service troubles.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362417 is a reply to message #362405] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 14:49 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 1:39:07 PM UTC-5, Dan Espen wrote:
>> AT&T's management did not destroy Bell Labs. It was destroyed by the
>> lawyers who forced the breakup of AT&T.
> Actually, the breakup was proposed by AT&T.
> They may or may not have lost the anti-trust suit.
> At the time, I thought not.
> Within the company, the story was that AT&T would be free to enter
> the computer maker market thereby becoming the next big thing.
IMHO, at the time AT&T made the compromise decision (circa 1980),
their path seemed generally pretty reasonable, except, perhaps,
for keeping Western Electric.
I think given the atmosphere of the time--there was a lot of anti-Bell
feeling among regulators, legislatures, Judge Greene*, DOJ, and
newcomers who wanted a piece of the market, that AT&T was doomed
in court.
* Oslin's book says Greene was clearly out to 'get' the Bell System--
he thought it was an evil monopoly and he sought a reform agenda.
> Ridiculous.
Wanting to get into the computer business was certainly a good
decision by AT&T. The company had outstanding talent and
experience in electronics and software. It had the name.
It had Bell Labs and W/E to develop and manufacture stuff.
Unfortunately, like so many other large American companies,
it just didn't 'click' in the computer marketplace.
Remember, IBM was terrified in the 1950s of big players
like RCA and General Electric who had so much more than
IBM did, yet IBM prevailed.
Indeed, at the time, everyone thought AT&T would give IBM
stiff competition in computers (and IBM would give AT&T
competition in communications).
For whatever reasons, AT&T didn't succeed at computers.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362418 is a reply to message #362406] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 14:53 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 1:53:00 PM UTC-5, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> starting in 80s, large companies started to create separate subsidiary
> corporations where they could book profits. posterchild were airlines
> where they set up ticket selling as separate corporate subsidiary.
Even earlier than that--the Western Union Telegraph Company
reorganized in the 1960s to sell computer services from an
unregulated subsidiary. The railroads had for years had
real estate and other businesses.
The Penn Central had numerous holdings. Ironically, it was
criticized for that, critics saying the holdings were a
distraction to management and disrupted railroad operations.
Yet actually most holdings were profitable and helped subsidize
the money-losing railroad.
(I interviewed at a truck-body/leasing company originally
created by the PRR and then owned by Conrail. They had a
System/3.)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners (was: Xerox company sold) [message #362425 is a reply to message #362404] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 15:23 |
pechter
Messages: 452
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <p54v67$21sc$1@gal.iecc.com>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> In article <8qtb7d5n9t5h883cclkl1csd1f103snnkb@4ax.com>,
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The action was done over time by AT&T's own management.
>>
>> AT&T's management did not destroy Bell Labs. It was destroyed by the
>> lawyers who forced the breakup of AT&T.
>
> AT&T could have divested Western Electric and kept the operating
> companies and Bell Labs, but made the spectacularly wrong prediction
> that there'd be more money in long distance than in POTS.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Absolutely, that's a bad strategic call thinking that Long Distance would
continue as the corporate cash call in the future and not seeing
the local loop and modems/networks/video services as the future.
They should've negotiated a government funded transition to fiber to the home
and the could've transitioned the country to a new Bell System.
We're getting close to having less cable/phone/internet suppliers than there
were operating Baby Bells.
Bill
Bill
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362426 is a reply to message #362405] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 15:28 |
pechter
Messages: 452
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <p54vka$b5v$1@dont-email.me>,
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 16:18:56 -0000 (UTC), pechter@t61.(none) (William
>> Pechter) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <kq7a7d1sjsqnltmkm789ql5r38s36ecnc9@4ax.com>,
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bell Labs was killed in 1984. It took a long time to die but that's
>>>> when the knife went in. I like to believe that there is a special
>>>> Hell for all the lawyers involved in that action.
>>>
>>> Killed, nope. It was suicide.
>>>
>>> The action was done over time by AT&T's own management.
>>
>> AT&T's management did not destroy Bell Labs. It was destroyed by the
>> lawyers who forced the breakup of AT&T.
>
> Actually, the breakup was proposed by AT&T.
> They may or may not have lost the anti-trust suit.
> At the time, I thought not.
> Within the company, the story was that AT&T would be free to enter
> the computer maker market thereby becoming the next big thing.
>
> Ridiculous.
>
> --
> Dan Espen
In '84 they proposed that they outsource the Bell Labs data center operations
to DEC and were looking to merge. I think the Vax envy led them
to try to sell computers commercially (3b20 simplex sold against VAX) and
later to the NCR takeover.
Neither were successful. I wonder if that DEC merger that was rumored in '84
was part of the deal... but there was a lot of corporate secrecy after
the stuff fell apart.
Wife at Bell Labs claimed she saw a in-house newsletter about the DEC taking
over the operations and sysadmin around then. She led me to believe that
the newsletter was supposedly removed from distribution posts at the
labs and destroyed.
Bill
collected and destroyed.
Bill
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362427 is a reply to message #362417] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 15:32 |
pechter
Messages: 452
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <9d71bdb2-2096-4bf3-996c-7108b3675c61@googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 1:39:07 PM UTC-5, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>>> AT&T's management did not destroy Bell Labs. It was destroyed by the
>>> lawyers who forced the breakup of AT&T.
>
>> Actually, the breakup was proposed by AT&T.
>> They may or may not have lost the anti-trust suit.
>> At the time, I thought not.
>> Within the company, the story was that AT&T would be free to enter
>> the computer maker market thereby becoming the next big thing.
>
> IMHO, at the time AT&T made the compromise decision (circa 1980),
> their path seemed generally pretty reasonable, except, perhaps,
> for keeping Western Electric.
>
> I think given the atmosphere of the time--there was a lot of anti-Bell
> feeling among regulators, legislatures, Judge Greene*, DOJ, and
> newcomers who wanted a piece of the market, that AT&T was doomed
> in court.
>
> * Oslin's book says Greene was clearly out to 'get' the Bell System--
> he thought it was an evil monopoly and he sought a reform agenda.
>
>
>> Ridiculous.
>
> Wanting to get into the computer business was certainly a good
> decision by AT&T. The company had outstanding talent and
> experience in electronics and software. It had the name.
> It had Bell Labs and W/E to develop and manufacture stuff.
> Unfortunately, like so many other large American companies,
> it just didn't 'click' in the computer marketplace.
>
> Remember, IBM was terrified in the 1950s of big players
> like RCA and General Electric who had so much more than
> IBM did, yet IBM prevailed.
>
> Indeed, at the time, everyone thought AT&T would give IBM
> stiff competition in computers (and IBM would give AT&T
> competition in communications).
>
> For whatever reasons, AT&T didn't succeed at computers.
>
>
One of the fun things I saw at Pyramid wat the problem with AT&T's union
field service crew being unwilling to troubleshoot machines running under
Unix. They only were willing to run completely off-line diags which didn't
exist at Pyramid in the field, IIRC.
The techs threatened a walkout at Pyramid's training.
They AT&T System 7000 were rebadged Pyramid MIServer class boxes.
One of the moves to the DC/OSx was the move to SVR4 on MIPS... which
died when AT&T purchased NCR.
Bill
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362428 is a reply to message #362403] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 15:35 |
pechter
Messages: 452
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <p54tdd$1rb6$1@gioia.aioe.org>, jmreno <none@znet.com> wrote:
> On 2/2/2018 6:39 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 15:47:33 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
>> <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:07:51 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, Xerox said that, after 115 years as an independent
>>>> business, it would combine operations with Fujifilm Holdings of
>>>> Japan. The deal signaled the end of a company that was once an
>>>> American corporate powerhouse. “Xerox is the poster child for
>>>> monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition
>>>> to a new generation of technology,” said David B. Yoffie, a
>>>> professor at the Harvard Business School. The move offers a
>>>> stark reminder that no matter how high a company may fly, it
>>>> is still vulnerable to the next big breakthrough. Xerox joins
>>>> once formidable tech companies like Kodak and BlackBerry that
>>>> lost the innovation footrace.
>>>>
>>>> full article at:
>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/business/dealbook/xerox-f ujifilm.html
>>>
>>> Sad. Many great US pioneers in computer technology were recently sold to
>>> foreigners. Bell Labs became French (Alcatel-Lucent) in 2006, now Finnish
>>> (Nokia). They're all finished. :-(
>>
>> Bell Labs was killed in 1984. It took a long time to die but that's
>> when the knife went in. I like to believe that there is a special
>> Hell for all the lawyers involved in that action.
>>
>
> Most of Bell Labs was sold to SAIC. Lucent ended up with a small part of
> it (and maybe the name).
>
> From: http://techblog.comsoc.org/category/uncategorized/page/64/
>
> ______________
>
> A History Lesson
>
> As part of the divestiture of the Bell System in 1983, many AT&T Bells
> Labs engineers were transfered to a new company that was to be the
> research labs for the seven spun-off RBOCs. Named Bell Communications
> Research- or Bellcore for short- the organization was formed January
> 1,1984. Over the next several years, Bellcore was very effective in
> helping their parent companies evaluate, standardize and arcitect new
> telecommunications technologies, e.g. ISDN, SMDS, Frame Relay, Software
> Defined Network, Intelligent Network, etc. Bellcore’s standards for TL1
> – the language of telco network management, and SONET (Synchronous
> Optical Network Transport) were implemented by every equipment company
> in those market segments.
>
> But as the RBOCs put less of an emphasis on research and developement
> there was less need for Bellcore. So the company was sold to Science
> Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in 1995. What SAIC was
> getting, according to Bellcore’s CEO at the time, was a $650
> million-a-year software business and a $350 million-a-year professional
> services business. The approval process for the deal was arduous,
> passing muster with seven owners and nine state regulatory agencies, so
> that the sale was not completed until November 1997.
>
> ...
> ______________
>
> I believe that SAIC also got the right to use all of Bell Lab's patents.
>
>
> The other reason I know is that I bought a few hundred cheap shares in
> Lucent because they said they owned Bell Labs. That was when Lucent
> still seemed to a viable company.
>
> After I bought the stock I became suspicious of Lucent's claim and
> contacted Lucent's banker who admitted that most of Bell Labs had been
> sold to SAIC.
Nope... SAIC got the Bellcore operations. That was a jointly funded
research piece of Bell Labs that was involved in phone company operations
and specific research in that area. It was the Baby Bell piece of Bell
Labs.
The WECO and generic research piece and semiconductor piece went to Lucent.
Been at Holmdel -- worked for Lucent in the late 90's through 2000.
Bill
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners (was: Xerox company sold) [message #362429 is a reply to message #362425] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 15:43 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 3:23:45 PM UTC-5, none William Pechter wrote:
>> AT&T could have divested Western Electric and kept the operating
>> companies and Bell Labs, but made the spectacularly wrong prediction
>> that there'd be more money in long distance than in POTS.
> Absolutely, that's a bad strategic call thinking that Long Distance would
> continue as the corporate cash call in the future and not seeing
> the local loop and modems/networks/video services as the future.
IMHO, in 1980, when AT&T made their plans, keeping long distance
seemed like a good idea. Here's why:
.. Regulators were tightly focused on local service, which included
considerable POTS that was expensive to serve yet generated little
revenue. In poor areas, regulators made it easier for customers
to not pay their bills yet keep service, so revenue took a hit.
Urban areas had crime troubles, adding to expenses. Local service
did not seem to have much of a future.
.. In contrast, all the growth seemed to be in long distance, both
voice and especially data.
.. New technology would allow lower costs and thus higher profits
in long distance.
.. Economies of scale were more and more important, and AT&T would
have them.
.. Regulators were more focused on individual service, not as much
long distance.
> They should've negotiated a government funded transition to fiber to the home
> and the could've transitioned the country to a new Bell System.
In 1980, I don't think fiber technology was mature enough yet for
home service--too expensive (especially in terms of terminal
equipment.) Also, at that time, I don't think regulators would allow
AT&T to carry TV signals--that belonged to cable.
> We're getting close to having less cable/phone/internet suppliers than there
> were operating Baby Bells.
True.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362436 is a reply to message #362405] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 16:54 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 13:39:06 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 16:18:56 -0000 (UTC), pechter@t61.(none) (William
>> Pechter) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <kq7a7d1sjsqnltmkm789ql5r38s36ecnc9@4ax.com>,
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bell Labs was killed in 1984. It took a long time to die but that's
>>>> when the knife went in. I like to believe that there is a special
>>>> Hell for all the lawyers involved in that action.
>>>
>>> Killed, nope. It was suicide.
>>>
>>> The action was done over time by AT&T's own management.
>>
>> AT&T's management did not destroy Bell Labs. It was destroyed by the
>> lawyers who forced the breakup of AT&T.
>
> Actually, the breakup was proposed by AT&T.
You make it sound like AT&T just spontaneously said "we're going to
break up into a bunch of little companies that compete with each
other".
> They may or may not have lost the anti-trust suit.
> At the time, I thought not.
> Within the company, the story was that AT&T would be free to enter
> the computer maker market thereby becoming the next big thing.
That story is told. However if the lawyers hadn't been involved they
would never have done it.
>
> Ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362437 is a reply to message #362417] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 17:05 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 11:49:09 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 1:39:07 PM UTC-5, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>>> AT&T's management did not destroy Bell Labs. It was destroyed by the
>>> lawyers who forced the breakup of AT&T.
>
>> Actually, the breakup was proposed by AT&T.
>> They may or may not have lost the anti-trust suit.
>> At the time, I thought not.
>> Within the company, the story was that AT&T would be free to enter
>> the computer maker market thereby becoming the next big thing.
>
> IMHO, at the time AT&T made the compromise decision (circa 1980),
> their path seemed generally pretty reasonable, except, perhaps,
> for keeping Western Electric.
>
> I think given the atmosphere of the time--there was a lot of anti-Bell
> feeling among regulators, legislatures, Judge Greene*, DOJ, and
> newcomers who wanted a piece of the market, that AT&T was doomed
> in court.
>
> * Oslin's book says Greene was clearly out to 'get' the Bell System--
> he thought it was an evil monopoly and he sought a reform agenda.
>
>
>> Ridiculous.
>
> Wanting to get into the computer business was certainly a good
> decision by AT&T. The company had outstanding talent and
> experience in electronics and software. It had the name.
> It had Bell Labs and W/E to develop and manufacture stuff.
> Unfortunately, like so many other large American companies,
> it just didn't 'click' in the computer marketplace.
>
> Remember, IBM was terrified in the 1950s of big players
> like RCA and General Electric who had so much more than
> IBM did, yet IBM prevailed.
>
> Indeed, at the time, everyone thought AT&T would give IBM
> stiff competition in computers (and IBM would give AT&T
> competition in communications).
>
> For whatever reasons, AT&T didn't succeed at computers.
Mostly didn't see where the market was going. In hindsight the way
to structure it would have been to have two of the Baby Bells compete
in CPU manufacture, another couple in hardware, and another one sells
Unix with all the bells and whistles for, say, 200 bucks to all
comers. They'd have addressed all the concerns--second source for
processors, second source for assembled machines, well established
operating system.
But they didn't do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362439 is a reply to message #362415] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 17:15 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 1:31:36 PM UTC-5, John Levine wrote:
>
>>> AT&T's management did not destroy Bell Labs. It was destroyed by the
>>> lawyers who forced the breakup of AT&T.
>>
>> AT&T could have divested Western Electric and kept the operating
>> companies and Bell Labs, but made the spectacularly wrong prediction
>> that there'd be more money in long distance than in POTS.
>
> AT&T also wrongly predicted that Western Electric would continue to
> be profitable. It knew at the time [Alvin Von Auw] that customer
> ownership of sets and wiring was no long cost-effective. However,
> it probably could not have predicted that W/E's business model of
> building equipment strong enough to withstand a nuke attack was no
> longer working, and consumers wanted cheap equipment, even if it
> meant frequent replacement. That is, consumers would rather have
> a cheap crappy $10 phone replaced every year than a solid durable
> $40 phone lasting for 40 years.
To be fair, today's "cheap" phones last a LOT longer than a year.
I think I got 20 years out of my last set of wireless in-house phones.
(The internal batteries stopped holding a charge.)
I know I'm on 3 years with the newest set.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362440 is a reply to message #362417] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 17:21 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 1:39:07 PM UTC-5, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>>> AT&T's management did not destroy Bell Labs. It was destroyed by the
>>> lawyers who forced the breakup of AT&T.
>
>> Actually, the breakup was proposed by AT&T.
>> They may or may not have lost the anti-trust suit.
>> At the time, I thought not.
>> Within the company, the story was that AT&T would be free to enter
>> the computer maker market thereby becoming the next big thing.
>
> IMHO, at the time AT&T made the compromise decision (circa 1980),
> their path seemed generally pretty reasonable, except, perhaps,
> for keeping Western Electric.
>
> I think given the atmosphere of the time--there was a lot of anti-Bell
> feeling among regulators, legislatures, Judge Greene*, DOJ, and
> newcomers who wanted a piece of the market, that AT&T was doomed
> in court.
>
> * Oslin's book says Greene was clearly out to 'get' the Bell System--
> he thought it was an evil monopoly and he sought a reform agenda.
>
>> Ridiculous.
>
> Wanting to get into the computer business was certainly a good
> decision by AT&T. The company had outstanding talent and
> experience in electronics and software. It had the name.
> It had Bell Labs and W/E to develop and manufacture stuff.
> Unfortunately, like so many other large American companies,
> it just didn't 'click' in the computer marketplace.
With no reasonable sales force and lots of very able
competition, they didn't stand a chance.
I felt that way at the time.
> Remember, IBM was terrified in the 1950s of big players
> like RCA and General Electric who had so much more than
> IBM did, yet IBM prevailed.
>
> Indeed, at the time, everyone thought AT&T would give IBM
> stiff competition in computers (and IBM would give AT&T
> competition in communications).
>
> For whatever reasons, AT&T didn't succeed at computers.
IBM went though an anti-trust case at around the same time.
There was every reason to believe AT&T would have the same outcome.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362445 is a reply to message #362418] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 19:00 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> Even earlier than that--the Western Union Telegraph Company
> reorganized in the 1960s to sell computer services from an
> unregulated subsidiary. The railroads had for years had
> real estate and other businesses.
>
> The Penn Central had numerous holdings. Ironically, it was
> criticized for that, critics saying the holdings were a
> distraction to management and disrupted railroad operations.
> Yet actually most holdings were profitable and helped subsidize
> the money-losing railroad.
>
> (I interviewed at a truck-body/leasing company originally
> created by the PRR and then owned by Conrail. They had a
> System/3.)
there were previous separate cooperations ... but starting around 1980
there was specific efforts to move profit out of large human intensive
operations ... in part as union negotiating tactic (later also as tax
avoidence). They separated airline operations from ticket sales ... in
such a way that airline operations showed little or no profit ... and
all the profit was booked in a totally separate corporation (where
previously that profit had been part of airline operations). The selling
of a passenger ticket to take an airlline operations flight had all the
profit ... and actual operation of flying was showing little or no
profit.
it wasn't creating a new subsidiary for a totally different business
that operated as a profit to subsidize money loosing business. It was
moving the profit from airline operations into a separate corporation
that sold a ticket for a person to use airline operations.
It would be more akin to creating a company in Ireland for charging for
railroad freight shipped in the united states. customers would pay the
Irish company for US railroad shipping ... the Irish company would keep
all the profit ... and pass on trivial amount to the US railroad that
actually moves the freight (resulting in the US railroad operating at a
loss ... and the billing for US railroad shipping was handled in another
country and operated at large profit).
I've mentioned periodically the 2008 annual economists conference
and economic roundtable discussing advantages of flattax ... eliminating
all tax loopholes and reducing tax rate ... while remaining tax
revenue neutral (same amount of taxes being collected). The big
advantage is it eliminates the enormous congressional graft and
corruption associated with selling tax loopholes and contributes
significantly to congress being considered the most corrupt institution
on earth.
They commented (in 2008) that Ireland is one of the largest operations
lobbying against such a change to US tax laws (and would radically cut
the payments to members of congress). It is part of one of the worst
thing that happened to the country was financialization and financial
innovation that saw big uptic around 1980.
past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#tax.evasion
|
|
|
|
| Re: Xerox company sold [message #362448 is a reply to message #362413] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 20:10 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
My understanding is that IBM is still a very large company, and that it is doing well.
Even so, it is still a mere shadow of what it once was.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners (was: Xerox company sold) [message #362449 is a reply to message #362349] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 20:11 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 15:25:34 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:07:51 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, Xerox said that, after 115 years as an independent
>>>> business, it would combine operations with Fujifilm Holdings of
>>>> Japan. The deal signaled the end of a company that was once an
>>>> American corporate powerhouse. Xerox is the poster child for
>>>> monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition
>>>> to a new generation of technology, said David B. Yoffie, a
>>>> professor at the Harvard Business School. The move offers a
>>>> stark reminder that no matter how high a company may fly, it
>>>> is still vulnerable to the next big breakthrough. Xerox joins
>>>> once formidable tech companies like Kodak and BlackBerry that
>>>> lost the innovation footrace.
>>>>
>>>> full article at:
>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/business/dealbook/xerox-f ujifilm.html
>>>
>>> Sad. Many great US pioneers in computer technology were recently sold to
>>> foreigners. Bell Labs became French (Alcatel-Lucent) in 2006, now Finnish
>>> (Nokia). They're all finished. :-(
>>>
>>> Other US companies went abroad recently (say last 30 years)?
>>
>> Honeywell -> Bull
>
> Honeywell sold their informations systems division to Bull. Honeywell
> however is now part of Allied Signal, which adopted the name and is
> still a huge American company.
>
>
Right, but no computers.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362450 is a reply to message #362417] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 20:11 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 1:39:07 PM UTC-5, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>>> AT&T's management did not destroy Bell Labs. It was destroyed by the
>>> lawyers who forced the breakup of AT&T.
>
>> Actually, the breakup was proposed by AT&T.
>> They may or may not have lost the anti-trust suit.
>> At the time, I thought not.
>> Within the company, the story was that AT&T would be free to enter
>> the computer maker market thereby becoming the next big thing.
>
> IMHO, at the time AT&T made the compromise decision (circa 1980),
> their path seemed generally pretty reasonable, except, perhaps,
> for keeping Western Electric.
>
> I think given the atmosphere of the time--there was a lot of anti-Bell
> feeling among regulators, legislatures, Judge Greene*, DOJ, and
> newcomers who wanted a piece of the market, that AT&T was doomed
> in court.
>
> * Oslin's book says Greene was clearly out to 'get' the Bell System--
> he thought it was an evil monopoly and he sought a reform agenda.
>
>
>> Ridiculous.
>
> Wanting to get into the computer business was certainly a good
> decision by AT&T. The company had outstanding talent and
> experience in electronics and software. It had the name.
> It had Bell Labs and W/E to develop and manufacture stuff.
> Unfortunately, like so many other large American companies,
> it just didn't 'click' in the computer marketplace.
>
> Remember, IBM was terrified in the 1950s of big players
> like RCA and General Electric who had so much more than
> IBM did, yet IBM prevailed.
>
> Indeed, at the time, everyone thought AT&T would give IBM
> stiff competition in computers (and IBM would give AT&T
> competition in communications).
Everyone was trying to get into everyone else's business, AT&T and Xerox
into computers, IBM into copiers and communications (SBS and Rolm), Xerox
into communications (Western Union), Kodak into copiers, etc.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners (was: Xerox company sold) [message #362455 is a reply to message #362415] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 21:29 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-03, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> AT&T also wrongly predicted that Western Electric would continue to
> be profitable. It knew at the time [Alvin Von Auw] that customer
> ownership of sets and wiring was no long cost-effective. However,
> it probably could not have predicted that W/E's business model of
> building equipment strong enough to withstand a nuke attack was no
> longer working, and consumers wanted cheap equipment, even if it
> meant frequent replacement. That is, consumers would rather have
> a cheap crappy $10 phone replaced every year than a solid durable
> $40 phone lasting for 40 years.
'zackly. The Economy depends on consumers being stupid.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Xerox company sold [message #362456 is a reply to message #362413] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 21:29 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-03, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> Is IBM in trouble today?
<snip>
> Does it still have the economy of scale to support
> intensive research to keep knocking out improvements to hardware,
<sarcasm>
You mean buying out or sabotaging competing hardware companies?
</sarcasm>
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362458 is a reply to message #362445] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 21:29 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-04, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
> I've mentioned periodically the 2008 annual economists conference
> and economic roundtable discussing advantages of flattax ... eliminating
> all tax loopholes and reducing tax rate ... while remaining tax
> revenue neutral (same amount of taxes being collected). The big
> advantage is it eliminates the enormous congressional graft and
> corruption associated with selling tax loopholes
FSVO "advantage".
> and contributes significantly to congress being considered the most
> corrupt institution on earth.
In other words, definitely _not_ an advantage to Congresscritters.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
