tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post5915241438810610633..comments2023-11-22T01:14:54.298-08:00Comments on amor mundi: Smooth on SterlingDale Carricohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-25647891111962523242014-05-10T11:04:32.390-07:002014-05-10T11:04:32.390-07:00Was Gates an SOB? Yeah, or at least a "sharp...Was Gates an SOB? Yeah, or at least a "sharp" business<br />negotiator. (Steve Jobs was an even<br />bigger SOB, and with less technical savvy -- just the<br />possessor of an overwhelming, and overwhemingly lauded, sense<br />of "style", and the ego to go with it). Does Gates<br />have to apologize (or hang his head in shame)<br />over these episodes in his past? Not bloody likely!<br />For one thing, none of the "victims" of his ethically-questionable<br />business practices ever went begging -- Paterson actually<br />went to work for Microsoft, and founded companies afterward, one<br />of which was bought by Microsoft. So what if Paterson's<br />"only" a millionaire, and not a billionaire (or<br />a candidate for "richest man in the world").<br />And maybe he (Paterson) doesn't get invited to Davos,<br />or enjoy (if that's the right word) first-tier celebrityhood.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Paterson<br /><br />Harvard is still Harvard, and IBM is, if not the<br />perceived titan of the computer world it<br />once was, still in business (they made other<br />mistakes in the early PC days, like not fighting the<br />"infringement" of the Phoenix BIOS --<br />it's ironic that a recent -- widely criticized --<br />court decision just established that APIs<br />(Application Programming Interfaces, like those<br />in a PC's BIOS) **themselves** (not just the code<br />implementing them) **can** be copyrighted:<br />https://gigaom.com/2014/05/09/tech-world-stunned-as-court-rules-oracle-can-own-apis-google-loses-copyright-appeal/<br />IBM came close to imploding in the early 90s<br />(for many reasons, not just losing control of the<br />PC market) but (like Apple) managed to turn around<br />at the last minute.<br /><br />So no, you don't have to be a genu-wine intellectual<br />to be a billionaire. But you **do** have to be both<br />shrewd and ruthless. And it probably helps to be<br />a sociopath, in some sense of the word<br />( http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Sociopath-Spent-Hiding-Plain/dp/0307956644 ).<br />In the case under discussion, Sterling's very shamelessness<br />in the face of public criticism in a sense "qualifies" him<br />to be what he is. That's an essential component of the "merit" in<br />"meritocracy", here in the U S of A.<br />jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-69060764540958336412014-05-10T11:03:37.572-07:002014-05-10T11:03:37.572-07:00"These tapes should be the last nail in the c..."These tapes should be the last nail in the coffin of<br />the idea that there is any meritocracy in American<br />capitalism. Any misconception that anyone ever had about<br />rich people getting where they are because they're<br />smarter had to die with this tape, because. . .<br />Wow. . ."<br /><br />Yeah, well, of course the commentator here is being<br />funny for entertainment's sake, and shouldn't be taken<br />too literally.<br /><br />"Smart" is a slippery term. Maybe a better word for<br />the sorts of people who end up as billionaires is<br />"shrewd". Another phrase that comes to mind<br />goes by the initials "SOB". You need a minimum of the<br />academic kind of smarts (it probably helps to be able<br />to count, and to know when important numbers are going<br />up or down ;-> ), but they're not enough -- you also<br />need the kind of ruthlessness that has always been<br />lauded in American society (and which is currently<br />idolized by Republicans, Libertarians, and Ayn Rand acolytes --<br />tools of the oligarchy. ;-> )<br /><br />Bill Gates is a good example. He had (has) plenty<br />of smarts in the academic sense -- he (and Paul Allen)<br />got their claws in the 70's microprocessor revolution<br />by writing a BASIC interpreter for the Intel 8080<br />chip in -- what was it? -- 3 months.<br /><br />But he had as much chutzpah as IQ -- 1) he used<br />Harvard's PDP-10 computer to write his BASIC interpreter.<br />Harvard, as far as I know, never got (or sought)<br />any compensation for this, and they never went after him<br />for theft or misuse of school resources. This<br />would be simultaneously less likely to be let slide<br />today and less "necessary" in the first place --<br />at least as far as computer resources are concerned.<br />I doubt if any Harvard administrators at the time<br />would have had a clue what was happening, and if they<br />had, well, somebody else would have become Microsoft.<br />2) He had no compunction afterwards about A) lying to IBM about<br />having an operating system he could sell them<br />for their upcoming PC, and B) sending somebody to talk<br />to Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products to convince<br />him (without mentioning anything about IBM) to sell<br />Gates & Co. the rights to Paterson's QDOS 8086 operating system<br />for $50 grand (this has been called a better deal<br />than the proverbial purchase of Manhattan for $24). <br />Gates also managed to negotiate a deal with IBM<br />to license "his" operating system as PC-DOS for the<br />IBM PC without IBM's getting exclusive rights to it (another<br />case of taking shrewd advantage of apparent cluelessness<br />or carelessness on the part of somebody at IBM).jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.com