Corporate R&D was once an engine of American progress and competition. Because antitrust rules banned growth through buying competitors, companies had to invest in bold R&D in order to grow.
ftalphaville.ft.com/2020/05/05/158…
1/
ftalphaville.ft.com/2020/05/05/158…
1/
As antitrust enforcement waned, so did R&D. Research moved to universities, while companies specialized in "Development" - but tech transfer offices and other efforts to turn academic research into businesses were far less effective than in-house R&D.
static1.squarespace.com/static/593d9b0…
2/
static1.squarespace.com/static/593d9b0…
2/
In-house labs had a dual role: they researched general purpose technologies, while solving practical problems. They had deep pockets and interdisciplinary teams - and often the research they did rippled out through the rest of industry (Xerox PARC and the GUI, AT&T and Unix).
3/
3/
But as antitrust scrutiny was relaxed, companies could capture the same growth without the (society-benefiting) inefficiencies of in-house research. Rather than growing by doing stuff, they grew by buying stuff.
blog.dshr.org/2020/05/the-de…
eof/
blog.dshr.org/2020/05/the-de…
eof/
