Former Intel CEO Andy Grove Wants Struggling Industries To Stop Slacking

lousyd writes "Andy Grove, former CEO of Intel and current instructor at Stanford Business School, has a message for industry. He believes that health care and energy, especially, could learn a lesson from computing's innovative and relatively government-free history. He asks students to imagine if mainframe vendors had asked government to prop them up in the same way that General Motors recently was. On the issue of computer patents, he insists that firms must use their patents or lose them: 'You can't just sit on your a** and give everyone the finger.'"

Comments

use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

A "use em or lose'm" rule would be good for fixing the patent troll problem, but it would do nothing to prevent software companies from attacking free software or from ruining standards.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much

[hedwards]

Hmm, so you're posting via prayer?

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much

[betterunixthanunix]

Which, of course, explains how C++ was standardized, and why very few programs are written in Ada...

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much

[cavehobbit]

I have been thinking lately, (don't let that scare you), that instead of the patent system granting exclusive rights, it should grant exclusive royalties.

In other words, it becomes a registration system that grantees payment of royalties to inventors for a specific period of time, paid by anyone that wants to use a patent.

So a patent holder can not restrict use of an invention. this allows others to use it as a base for further invention and innovation. It also removes, to a big extent, any reason for companies to fight patent awards, or try to steal or use patents without paying, which might lower the number of lawsuits, etc. Why risk paying lawyers when you can just use it cheaply and legally?.

I am not certain how to determine the royalty rate though. Could an auction system work? Or maybe a percentage of the cost to manufacture, which would be harder to fudge than percentage of profit?

One reform does need to be made, similar to what the parent mentions: You should not be able to file a patent application for anything that is already being produced and marketed by anyone, including yourself. If you forget to file and it is sold or produced before the patent application is filed, well, you screwed up. It should automatically be in the public domain, regardless of what ever kind of excuses or prior evidence you can mock up.

The world has changed since the 18th century when the basis for the U.S. patent system was formed. (I dunno about other systems). It is far easier to keep track of what people are making and selling in distant places than it was 300 years ago, and easier to assess royalties, etc. There seems to no longer need to be a simple ban on anyone else using a patent.

Yeah, lots of details lef tout, and probably lots of holes, and a bunch of new problems different than the current ones. But would it be an improvement over the current system? Maybe you patent gurus here can comment.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much

[rolfwind]

I read that the original argument for patents was to avoid the secretive guilds of the medieval era. That is, in exchange for temporary societal protection and granting of monopoly, information was opened up. Now, perhaps that was the argument needed when back in the day, all you really "owned" was what you could protect and horde.

But I wonder how much of that purpose today's patents actually achieve in obtaining, for the public, new info worth having, rather than obvious variants, rehashed variants, or things that could be reversed engineered from products of the company. Many of the interesting things still are done under "propietary" (read: secret) processes.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much

[bhima]

Not that I really have a dog in this hunt but I think the comparison of colloquial English and computer communication protocols is an extremely poor one. Perhaps legal English would make for a better but still imperfect comparison... and that certainly has a long history of regulation, negotiation, contractual agreement.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much

[bjourne]

Not true. Read up on the history of Bell Labs, the state owned research branch of AT&T. Without it, computing wouldn't be anything like today.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much

[Phurge]

Instinctively I tend to agree with you.

Taking away the capacity of the patent holder to screw down the person who is innovating based upon patented work is a good thing, but then the patent holder deserves a return for their R&D. Perhaps if the rules were fixed up front, that would be give certainty. I'm not sure about auctioning, since a lot more variables come into play. Perhaps if you set royalties at 20% that would be good for both patent holder and user over the long term.

But what about derivative works based on two or more patents? - So I'm not sure the whole royalty system would work so easily.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much

[TheRaven64]

The other difficulty is setting the rate for the royalty. Should a component for a car gearing system get the same royalty as a component for an MRI machine, even though the latter cost ten times as much R&D spending and will ship a tiny fraction of the number of units? If not, how do you decide how much more it should cost? I'm in favour of compulsory licensing for copyright and patents, but setting the royalty rate is difficult.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much

[TheRaven64]

Andy Grove said, "You can't just sit on your a** and give everyone the finger." And later he added, "Hey you kids, get off my damn lawn!" ;-)

I think Andy Grove deserves more respect than you are giving him. Remember, this is a man who can vocalise two asterisks in a row.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much

[Moryath]

It would never work.

The patent system is broken. Patents are only supposed to be given to truly innovative work, not simple "evolutionary" changes (e.g. "the logical next step.") Thanks to "patent-slamming" (the practice of companies like IBM, Micro$oft, and others sending in thousands on thousands of patent filings per year on the theory that if even 1% gets through they can patent-troll those and block competition), the patent office is overworked. The overworked patent office, in turn, has been granting patents to all sorts of things that never, ever should have qualified.

A great example of this was Wizards of the Coast's "patent" on card game mechanics, to wit "The method of claim 3, wherein said step of designating one or more of the cards comprises rotating the one or more cards on the playing surface from an original orientation to a second orientation", which under a proper analysis done by any COMPETENT and non-overworked patent attorney should have been invalidated by prior art by the collected works of one Edmund Hoyle over two hundred years ago.

The patent playing field is broken and needs a re-set, with strong rules preventing things like patent-slamming from happening and getting back to the point where only true innovation is rewarded with a patent. Until that time, we're fucked.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much

[damburger]

Government projects in democratic countries are answerable to the people, and thus has to consider all the consequences so society of their actions. Keeping a perhaps inefficient steel industry around prevents unemployment and keeps communities together, and if a government run steel industry is managed by a democratically elected government, it has to take these things into account.

Private enterprise has no such burden; it can take a shit on workers, communities, natural resources, pretty much at will. It shifts all the negative consequences of its actions off its own balance sheet and lets society (normally through government) cover the costs of sorting it all out.

The widely spread myth that private enterprise is more 'efficient' is merely an accounting anomaly; democratic government has to take responsibility for its actions and pay to sort them out. Private industry can make someone else pay to sort them out.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much

[tsm_sf]

I live in a world where saying "I want to patent turning a playing card 90 degrees" doesn't get you kicked in the nuts?

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much

[Planesdragon]

I have been thinking lately, (don't let that scare you), that instead of the patent system granting exclusive rights, it should grant exclusive royalties.,

No. The government should not dictate how much a patent is worth -- which is the effect of what you suggest.

Patents (and copyright) are a way of giving market value to creative effort. Any "reform" of either that removes the absolute ability of the inventor (author) to control whom uses their IP removes said IP from the market, and instead makes it a form of government regulation.

Should patents and copyright be reformed, to make some things which are currently protected (business methods & software respectively) not eligible for them? Yes. But should the basic idea be altered? Not unless you're also going to make big changes to our market-based system.

(Yes, software should not be covered by copyright -- it should be governed by a design patent, same as any other product of engineering.)

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much

[wheeda]

Tax patents. Let the patent owner state a value. Have the tax rate be a few percent. If someone wants to use the stuff that is patented, they would pay the patent owner the stated value. The patent would then become public domain. 1. This increases the tax base. 2. Rewards inventors. 3. Gets rid of patent trolls. Or maybe it doesn't, but at least they pay a lot of taxes. 4. Makes it easier for me to develop a product if I know what it is going to cost to acquire the patents.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much

[burnin1965]

And later he added, "Hey you kids, get off my damn lawn!" ;-)

Interesting view on Grove's statement, I assume you are basing that on the belief that all the patent trolling and threats are something new? Actually Grove's statement is fresh and enlightening as patent trolling and threats have been around for almost as long as the USPTO. Look up some history on the sewing machine patent wars of the 1850's or the aircraft patent wars in the early 1900's.

But Mr. Grove is correct - government often makes things stagnate and hold steady

I can't say I know Grove's political opinions and beliefs but you seem to be reading your own bias into his statements. Grove does not say government often makes things stagnate and hold steady, in fact he is stating that certain industries are already stagnated and holding steady and the government intervention is simply maintaining the status quo.

From the 1950s to the 1980s the only speeds available were 110 bit/s and 300 bit/s. If AT&T still held that monopoly, we'd still have 0.3 kbit/s modems and the late-90s web explosion would have been impossible (too slow).

Actually from the 1950's to the 1980's the only affordable data speeds for a home connection were in the 110bps to 300bps range. This was not due to the lack of technology development by a government mandated monopoly, in fact quite the opposite. The government mandated monopoly created a massive telecom infrastructure and AT&T was continually working on the technology to interconnect that system efficiently and effectively. The T-Carrier was designed and implemented in the late 1950's and early 1960's and provided 1.5Mbps. ISDN became available in many areas in the mid to late 1980's and provided two 64Kbps lines that could be bonded into one 128Kbps line. I still have an old 3-Com ISDN modem sitting in a box in the basement. :)

So from the 1950's to the 1980's there were bit rates available well above the 100 to 300 bps you noted. This may not have been apparent to home computer users connecting with POTS modems at the time because these services were not marketed to and the equipment likely was not affordable for a home user.

But the Carterphone decision (circa 1981) eliminated that monopoly and multiple companies began a "speedwar" that rapidly moved speeds from 0.3 to 56k in only ten years time.

I disagree. The decision made way for long distance pricing wars, but had no effect on data rates. The explosion in data rates came with the rise of the internet and was made possible by the companies developing modems they sold to house holds and the racks at the ISPs. The telecoms had nothing to do with this other than providing the analog POTS connection between the two. Now the bandwidth explosion after 56k was addressed by the telecoms as the POTS had reached its limit and it was up to the telecoms to provide better infrastructure.

But there is an interesting point from your statement, "eliminated that monopoly", that more than government controls affects the development of technology and better pricing and services for end users.

Two cases in point, the patent wars between sewing machine companies and aircraft manufacturers I noted earlier ended and industries prospered once the patents were pooled to eliminate the monopolies. In the case of the sewing machine patents the industry players created the pool, in the case of the aircraft industry the government had to step in and create the pool.

Now I'm not saying the government should start jumping into the markets and controlling everything, to the contrary, they should stay out and only get involved when it is necessary for the benefit of the p

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much

[drsquare]

Patents themselves are government intervention in the market.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents (and copyright) are a way of giving market value to creative effort. Any "reform" of either that removes the absolute ability of the inventor (author) to control whom uses their IP removes said IP from the market, and instead makes it a form of government regulation.

What utter bullshit.

The purpose of patents is not to create or inflate
value.
Patents are ment to encourage disclosure without destroying value.
There's absolutely no reason for the patent holder to retain control if it's not necessary to his benefitting from the patent.
 

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much

[HuguesT]

Thanks for the link to the Wright-Curtiss patent war of the early 20th century in aviation. There it states that because of that patent war, aviation did not progress as swiftly in the US as it did in Europe, so much so that when the US entered WWI, it had no competitive aircraft and was forced to use French ones!

This is a perfect illustration that in the wrong context, especially patent trolls, patents actively hinder progress.

So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[dangitman]

He asks students to imagine if mainframe vendors had asked government to prop them up in the same way that General Motors recently was.

Perhaps there would have been more supercomputers? Or the internet would have arrived sooner and networking would be more advanced? None of us know what would have happened. Assuming it would have been worse is just speculation.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[godIsaDJ]

He asks students to imagine if mainframe vendors had asked government to prop them up in the same way that General Motors recently was.

Perhaps there would have been more supercomputers? Or the internet would have arrived sooner and networking would be more advanced? None of us know what would have happened. Assuming it would have been worse is just speculation.

Given the history of such enterprises, learned speculation would tell it'd have to be worse... You are saying that since they didn't have a chance to screw that up, magically it would turn out to be their only success...

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[dangitman]

I dunno, government funding of private enterprise has worked pretty spectacularly in the past. For example; the railroad system, The New Deal, WWII spending, interstate highways, aerospace technology, the Apollo missions, ARPANET, etc. And those are only a few examples from the US, ignoring other countries' initiatives.

Of course, there are plenty of spectacular failures too, but that's true of any human endeavor. But like I said, this is just speculation. Would we have had the internet at the time we did without government funding?

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[hedwards]

So, is it also ignorant to assume that if I take a few steps off my roof that I'll fall and hurt myself? I mean it's only about 15 feet, I suppose if I fell correctly, I might not break anything.

This is a pretty well known problem, and there's a very good reason why the assumption is valid. Innovating and coming up with new ideas is both hard and expensive. If you don't believe that government intervention of this sort kills progress, just look at the various Russian industries that have and are going nowhere.

Now look at industries in the US that have been messed with in a similar way by our government, surprisingly there isn't that much difference beyond what corruption explains. What you're arguing against is a pretty fundamental element in economics, and while I question a lot of ideas that economists have, this one has a lot of merit to it.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[dyfet]

The private sector was clearly interested only in hoping "data islands" from which "publishing" could be strictly controlled (and billed) along with limited interconnection through proprietary network protocols, and not in creating some kind of generic interconnection as such where network services and data could be offered by any participating peer. If we did not have the government funded Internet at the start, we would still be today essentially experiencing some decadent of or something like Compuserve or AoL, that is a metered data service delivered from an isolated digital island, and perhaps even things like broadband may never have become widely available outside of businesses looking to connect ipx over x.25 networks :).

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[commodore64_love]

>>>For example; the railroad system, The New Deal, WWII spending, interstate highways, aerospace technology, the Apollo missions, ARPANET, etc.
>>>

OMG. You call these successes? Let's see:

- railroads were funded *privately* not publicly. And now that rail has been taken-over by government, it's constantly on the verge of bankruptcy. Ditto the government-run post office.

- The New Deal was a major fuckup that extended the recession from 1929 to 1950. Contrast that with the 1921 recession when the government did nothing, and yes it was bad, but the economy quickly recovered in 1922.

- WW2 was a horror not a success.

- Most interstate highways (like I-76/I-80) are paved-over already existing State Turnpikes, which were *private* funded businesses. Their genesis lies in the spirit of entrepreneurship. Now that government has taken-over a lot of them are falling apart (see bridge collapses).

- Aerospace was born in the backyards of hobbyists with a vision, and brought to fruition by a military looking for weapons, which you're right - governments are very effective at waging war.

- ARPAnet is something for which government deserves credit, but after 1980 the government was intelligent enough to step aside and let private companies take over, and that's why these was an enormous boom (from 0.1 or 0.3 kbit/s speeds under the government-run stagnation to ~100,000 kbit/s speeds with competitive speedwars).

- Social Security has been a joke, because if you live long enough to get it, the "interest rate" earned on your original deposit is only 1%... below the inflation rate so effectively negative growth. If you don't live long enough to see retirement (a more common problem than many people realize), the money you get back is ZERO! ----- You'd be better-off having a simple savings account could be handed-off to your children if you die, rather than disappear forever. Plus you'd earn much much greater growth, than investing in the government's SS.

I'll stop here. I could go on-and-on-and-on about government failures, bankruptcies, misappropriation of funds, et cetera, but my hands hurt so I'll just stop here and let you absorb what you've heard.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[dangitman]

- railroads were funded *privately* not publicly. And now that rail has been taken-over by government, it's constantly on the verge of bankruptcy. Ditto the government-run post office.

No, the first transcontinental railroads were heavily government funded.

- The New Deal was a major fuckup that extended the recession from 1929 to 1950.

In some people's opinion, but it is likely that without action it would have been a lot worse.

- WW2 was a horror not a success.

The war itself was, but America profited massively from it, in economic and technological terms.

- Social Security has been a joke, because if you live long enough to get it, the "interest rate" earned on your original deposit is only 1%...

I didn't mention Social Security, but the point of it is not to provide a return on investment, but to provide security to society. Which it does, with varying effectiveness.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[dangitman]

P.S:

I didn't respond to all your points, because many of them you conceded that government involvement was useful. However, your Social Security example is particularly off-base, because I was talking about government-private relationships, which Social Security is not really an example of. It seems to me that private enterprise when combined with government backing (combined mandates for public benefit) produce more remarkable results than either purely government or purely private endeavors do.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[misexistentialist]

SS also provides disability insurance. And if you die early you're children still benefit by not having to pay for monthly check.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[JAlexoi]

railroads were funded *privately* not publicly. And now that rail has been taken-over by government, it's constantly on the verge of bankruptcy. Ditto the government-run post office.

I will be corrected if I am wrong. But isn't US postal service a non profit seeking organization, that sets it's service prices just to cover expenses? And when you don't target profit, you are by definition "on the verge of bankruptcy", so is any other 0 profit seeking entity.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[JAlexoi]

WW2 was a horror not a success

And yet the United States of America emerged as the most wealthy and dominant power in the world AFTER WW1 and WW2. After those 2 wars everybody owed US a lot of money.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[Sibko]

And now that rail has been taken-over by government, it's constantly on the verge of bankruptcy. Ditto the government-run post office.

The USPS have been posting significant profits for years now.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[Anarchduke]

I can tell you've never been on welfare or food stamps. Otherwise you wouldn't be talking out your ass this way.

In any case, the purpose of social security was to provide a source of financial income to old people.

You sound like someone who really needs to get laid, or go into anger management courses, or both.

"The Government" - I would like to know which agency within "The Government" you are referring to. I would also like to know what government you are referring to. If you are in the US, you could be referring to the federal government, your state government, your county government, or your city government. And within "The Government" there are scores of different agencies, all responsible for different programs, initiatives, and regulations.

Perhaps giving a more clear example instead of your blanket "government sucks" line might make this more clear.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[Anarchduke]

Which is why when the economy tanked during the Great Depression, social security was created, since nobody wanted millions of elderly starving to death.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[Anarchduke]

Don't you know that the moon landings were faked? Even Neil Armstrong is convinced that his historic moonwalk was faked.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[jpmorgan]

The public funding of the transcontinental railroad was highly successful. Congress funded two companies, one starting from the east and one starting from the west, with a plan to join in the middle. Which was a great plan in theory- whichever company went the fastest would lay down more track and get paid more (mostly in land), before the two met. Unfortunately when the two did meet they both decided they liked the government funding so much they just went right on building. They built hundreds of miles of parallel tracks before congress ordered them to stop.

I've always found that (true) story hilarious.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[sgt_doom]

I would like to add to your excellent and highly accurate post, Good Citizen dangitman, as opposed to bothering with some of the idiotic and moronic criticizing posts which follow it: If Wall Street could ever come up with anything remotely as successful as Social Security (an insurance program for the majority), we would all be mightily impressed.

Instead, they keep coming up with an infinite amount of securitized financial scams (or as they call them, "instruments") to continue The Great Financialization.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[Trepidity]

False. ONE transcontinental railroad (the first) was supported with free land from the Congress. The funding was entirely private, and all future railroads were done without government assistance.

That isn't true at all.

The U.S. government spent $10 million purchasing land from Mexico, the Gadsden Purchase, for the express reason of helping Southern Pacific complete the southerly-route transcontinental railroad. It also received land grants.

The northerly-route transcontinental railroad, Northern Pacific, also received quite a lot of land grants.

In total, the U.S. government subsidized the construction of railroads in the 2nd half of the 19th century by giving them title to one-tenth of the territory of the United States.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[dangitman]

False. ONE transcontinental railroad (the first) was supported with free land from the Congress. The funding was entirely private,

How is providing free land not funding? Do you think land is worthless or something? You're also incorrect, funding was also provided via government bonds. And it wasn't only one railroad that was given free land and money.

You need to get your facts straight, son.

A private savings account would provide greater security, simply because you know that if you die before 70, it will be passed-onto your children, rather than disappear.

So, what if you don't have the money to put into a private savings account?

And why are you trying to derail the conversation into one about Social Security, which I never mentioned?

Almost-everything the government touches is a fail

That's clearly nonsense. You don't seem to care for objectivity at all, you've clearly made up your mind that government is bad, and facts don't matter.

The majority of businesses fail over time, and there have been some spectacular failures. So, by your method of ignoring anything good and only seeing the bad, I guess it's equally valid to say that everything that private enterprise does is "a fail."

By the way, "fail" is not a noun.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[dangitman]

Don't many of the current bailouts also have conditions applied to them? As far as Andy Grove's comments go, why would the hypothetical bailout of the mainframe manufacturers have to be money with no strings attached? Couldn't such a bailout be conditional on them doing something for the public good, or meeting some infrastructure goal?

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[commodore64_love]

>>>I can tell you've never been on welfare or food stamps

I'm on welfare right now, you insensitive clod! (Look at that: I made my point AND used a meme at the same time. Woo-hoo!) So yes I know what it's like. Comfortable. As it should be because that's what safety nets are for - to catch citizens if they fall off the highwire of life and need assistance to survive.

Getting back to my main point:

The SS program is redundant and not necessary. Plus it's been used/abused by the government to fund other projects as if it was just an ordinary tax meant to be spent. SS == Epic fail. Obama and Clinton and others say that the healthcare industry is broken, but NOTHING is as broken as the Social Security program and needs to be fixed NOW. Evolve the SSI into a needs-based system (i.e. for those who run out of money), or else it will collapse faster than Madoff's ponzi scheme collapsed

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be?

[commodore64_love]

>>>So, what if you don't have the money to put into a private savings account?

Then you sign-up for Welfare when you retire at age 70 or higher. That's what that program is for - to help those without enough money to care for themselves.

>>>The majority of businesses fail over time

If only the government would do that same (or have the balls to layoff not-needed workers to reduce expenses, rather than have them just sitting-around doing nothing). Government is a MONOPOLY and therefore no better than if Microsoft had a monopoly, or Comcast had a monopoly, or Ford had a monopoly.

O really!

[siloko]

You can't just sit on your a** and give everyone the finger

Beg
to
differ,
twice,
three times and maybe even
four!

No thanks

[BlackPignouf]

Government-free energy implies more coal power plants.
Few energy companies are interested in multi-billions long term investments in energy efficiency & renewables.
The path of least resistance is coal, which also happens to be the dirtiest solution.

Re:No thanks

[afaiktoit]

If only there were as many protests to stop mountain top removal as there are to stop from putting up wind farms. Plus all the slack coal gets over their slag and ash dumps and all the mercury they're putting into the fish.

Re:No thanks

[BobMcD]

The path of least resistance is coal, which also happens to be the dirtiest solution.

This.

Except, not probably in the way that you think.

If we want to see the world use energy efficiency and renewables, then ideally we find a way to make them the path of least resistance.

Make it make cents, and suddenly it will make sense as well. It doesn't work in every case, but on the supply side of the equation it gets exponentially more important.

Re:No thanks

[GaryOlson]

No, government-free energy implies more nuclear. Excessive government regulation of nuclear power has artificially increased the cost of nuclear power beyond reason. Nuclear power has a far lower cost of operation.

Re:No thanks

[NotBornYesterday]

Operation, perhaps. But the long-term waste storage problem is a real bitch. Of course, without outdated government concern over proliferation, we might have fuel reprocessing coupled with more advanced reactors, leaving us with waste that is nasty for a shorter term, and a whole lot less of it overall.

Re:No thanks

[commodore64_love]

>>>Government-free energy implies more coal power plants.

Vice-versa government-run "cash for clunkers" means perfectly good cars were taken off the road, squashed, and thrown into landfills. The government didn't even bother to strip the parts and sell them (recycling), but instead declared that to be illegal. Had a private megacorp done that they'd be pilloried but when government does it, it's labeled a success.

Next up - "cash for breakers" where people are encouraged to break their windows and buy all new ones.

Re:No thanks

[maxume]

The hardest part about long term waste storage is getting people to give it as little thought as they give the millions of tons of material pumped into the atmosphere by coal power plants (and it is becoming clear that they actually put more radiation into the environment than nuclear, so it isn't just a matter of the potential problems associated with the CO2).

The idea of creating institutions that need to stand for thousands of years is a little scary, but I'm a lot more scared of turning off the lights.

Re:No thanks

[Wonko the Sane]

We've had the technology since the 60s to build reactors that don't produce fuel "waste". The only thing standing in the way of progress in the field for the last 50 years is government interference and anti-nuclear hysteria.

I'm too lazy to do it...

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

I'm too lazy to do it, but I think if I looked hard enough, I'm pretty sure I'd find a giant heap of government subsidization in Intel's past. It might be disguised as tax breaks, favorable legislation, or some sweet no-bid contract deal, but I doubt many companies get to Intel's size without getting some help along the way from their friends in state and federal governments. They were just smart enough to get it done in a way that's a lot less visible than the "ZOMG I CAN HAZ BAILOUT" approach taken recently.

Re:I'm too lazy to do it...

[commodore64_love]

It actually makes sense to have companies be taxfree. They provide jobs which is a useful service to the nation and should be encouraged, just the same way we encourage other useful services like the foundation for the arts or the government-run school system or or city metro or whatever.

Plus we all know that taxes get paid by consumers anyway. If next year the Congress announced a 20% National Tax on every product sold, do you think Walmart or MS or other Corps would just say, "Oh that's okay. We'll pay it ourselves." Of course not. They'll pass it onto the customers as 20% higher prices. Corporate taxation is just a hidden tax that ultimately comes out of OUR wallets.

I think an organization that provides Americans with jobs should be tax exempt, if only as a way of saying "thank youse for my jarb". ;-)

Re:I'm too lazy to do it...

[TheRaven64]

It's more subtle than that. The idea of taxing corporations is that not everything corporations sell is sold you your taxpayers. If, for example, a US corporation is paying tax in the US and selling 10% of its products to Canadians, then only 90% of the corporate taxes have to be paid by US taxpayers, the rest are paid by Canadian taxpayers (you didn't believe that whole 'no taxation without representation' thing did you?). For large companies, this percentage is much higher, and so taxing the corporation means you get to lower taxes for the people who elected you. Of course, this stops working when corporations start using off-shore tax havens. It also doesn't work particularly well when you are a net importer from an economic standpoint, but it still does from a psychological standpoint ('foreign companies are making your cost of living go up, the government is lowering taxes!').

apples to oranges comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

People die because they can not get access to or afford health care, no so with Intel products.
Plus the U.S. Federal Gov requires that E.R.s treat those who can not pay*. Hey Andy, how about Intel give away CPUs, Chipsets, Motherboards and SSDs (w00t!) to those who can't afford 'em?

* So I've heard.

PS, no I did not read the article.

Re:apples to oranges comparison

[commodore64_love]

>>>People die because they can not get access to or afford health care, no so with Intel products.

In the United States there are only 8 million U.S. citizens that are not covered by either a private or government program. That's less than 3% of all Americans. PLEASE please stop exaggerating the problem just to push-forward your agenda. There is no reason to punish the other 97% with a government monopoly takeover.

Instead all you need to do is extend the existing programs (like medicare) to those 3% of uncovered persons. A simple fix.

healthcare

[mc moss]

"Another business he believes to be ripe for disruption is health care. He complains that the industry seems to innovate much too slowly. The lack of proper electronic medical records and smart âoeclinical decision systemsâ bothers him, as does the slow-moving, bureaucratic nature of clinical trials. He thinks pharmaceutical firms should study the fast âoeknowledge turnsâ achieved by chipmakers, so that the cycles of learning and innovation are accelerated."

I don't think this guy understands how the healthcare industry works. We can implement a change with electronic medical records but when it comes to clinical trials and drug testing, it is not just bureaucracy that slows it down. The very nature of using human subjects as opposed to electronic devices means doing long and thorough testing, and we still don't have a complete picture of how everything fits together in the human body.

Re:Stop letting Stanford Business School people ..

[Wonko the Sane]

I'm going to have to take a shower after writing this, but I agree 100% with John C Dvorak on this subject.

Re:"Relatively government free"

[hedwards]

You do realize that, you're totally taking that and twisting it around, right? DARPA and the NSA demand results, they don't necessarily care what the cost is, but they do demand technological advancement or they will go elsewhere to get it. As opposed to the government tinkering in failing businesses giving them cash and pushing them around as to how to produce things for purchase by consumers.

It's not really the same thing.

massive government subsidies

[jipn4]

The computing industry has received massive government subsidies. The Internet, high performance computing, CPU architectures, compiler construction, and plenty more was financed by DARPA and other US government agencies, as well as European and Japanese government function. The subsidies were in the form of research grants, technology transfer from government research labs, among others. Knowledge and technologies were also massively transferred in the form of graduate students, academics, and government researchers coming into the private computing sector.

There's nothing wrong with--it's government doing what it should be doing. But if Andy Grove thinks computing did it all by itself, he's kidding himself.

If other sectors (automotive, energy, transportation, environment, etc.) are supposed to catch up, the government needs to invest massively in basic and applied research, fellowships, and government research labs in those areas.

Re:Er Wait a Minute...

[ComputerGeek01]

Yeah, I think they were hit for "paying off" big manufactors NOT to buy competitors products. IMO this isn't slacking though; I'd imagine with all of the bribes and negotiations that took place they would had to have been very pro-active.

Re:Read the article,

[loki_tiwaz]

You want an example? Look at alcohol. Look at the deaths resulting from the widespread legal use of said drug, and tell me with a straight face that the answer is to unleash big pharma to make and market more chemical toys to play with.

yes, of course, the answer to a small part of the population mishandling something is prohibition. what about education? and your answer specifically implies that alcohol should be banned. yeah right, good luck with that. people only accepted prohibition of psychoactive drugs because they had available drug options, as well as of course the highly effective brainwashing techniques used to demonise the terrible drugs of the time - back in those days cannabis was the drug the filthy peasants used and that's why they attacked it.

fact is that people are using the drugs (amazing but true) anyway. and not enlarging the options for people is not helping, because it's a case of the devil you know. like meth, sure, it's got a lotta downsides, i know from personal experience. but what alternative is there?

at some point society as a whole is gonna have to really re-evaluate this whole business because the mess the current situation has created is a RESULT of prohibition. not the existence of any given drug.

lets say that somehow magically prohibition worked and all the illegal drugs suddenly evaporated. nobody was using illegal drugs. don't you think they'd turn to legal ones? do you even comprehend how big the legal drug abuse problem is now? oxycontin, vicodin, suboxone, valium whatever you care to name. legal drugs are more used in the wrong way than illegal ones. people use drugs for a reason and focusing on their behaviour when they misuse them is missing the point entirely.

AT&T and other monopolies

[Anonymous Coward]

But Mr. Grove is correct - government often makes things stagnate and hold steady, such as when AT&T had a government-protected monopoly over the phone lines and computer modems

The reason AT&T was created as a monopoly was to help build telephone infrastructure.

There used to be dozens of telephone companies and electrical utilities. However they only served urban areas and everyone strung up their own cables. When they went bust the cables were left there as there was no one to clean them up.

Monopolies were legislated so that one company could build the infrastructure for all residents (urban and rural). They were guaranteed a fixed profit and in exchange had to serve all areas equally, with urban dwellers subsidizing the building of infrastructure in rural parts (farming was greatly helped by electrification in many aspects--which helped them become more efficient and lower food prices).

Now perhaps the phone monopoly was allowed to live too long. Or perhaps the monopoly should have been for the infrastructure (cables), and there should have been competition for the actual service (like Sweden does with ISPs). But the monopoly was initially formed for very good reasons, and without it we wouldn't have the electrical and telephone infrastructure as quickly as we did.

And other government interference was Europe mandating GSM: it forced all companies on the same playing field and gave people choices in equipment and services. Whereas in the US laissez faire model you have multiple carriers, with multiple standards, with only token "competition" between them because once someone on one system the switching costs can be very high.

The competition should be in services, not in infrastructure. The infrastructure should be one open standard (either voluntarily picked or mandated).

Re:AT&T and other monopolies

[bubbha]

Not to mention NASA. The market and private enterprise could never have put a man on the moon in 10 years. Government set the strategy and arranged for private companies to make it happen.

Note that the space program (and military) drove the creation of technology to create commercial integrated circuits. How convenient to forget the help that government provides after the fact.

Of course without that arrogance - perhaps he would never have become the effective manager that he once was.

Re:Grove is ignoring history

[damburger]

Lets not forget that IBM was involved in a massive, government funded, data processing project in Europe in the 1940s

On a less flippant note, the microprocessor was a direct product of the US nuclear missile program. Nobody was pushing for miniaturised computers until the government put billions into making it happen so they could fit a guidance computer on a missile.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/05/tob_minuteman_1/print.html

Minuteman II's navigation system was nearly one quarter the size of Minuteman I with approximately two and a half times as much memory. Midway through the decade, the Minuteman project was responsible for about 20 per cent of all IC sales and had become the largest purchaser of semiconductor microcircuits. While the American government's direct contribution of integrated circuit R&D is arguably modest, it was undeniably the technology's sugar-daddy.

But that is the trick to being a good capitalist; rewrite history and claim you've never received any help from the government, and it was the 'genius of the market' which made you rich. Don't be afraid to wag your fingers at any other government subsidy though - because its all evil socialism!

With cheese

[copponex]

Let me address the real issue here. Just because the US has poorly managed it's infrastructure does not mean the rest of the world has. Capitalist fanaticism is just as dumb as communist or anarchist fanaticism.

For instance, the whole of Europe is covered by subsidized rail. Europe uses less than 20% of the energy that we do for transportation. Who is more efficient? France has a nuclear powered high speed rail system that is ridiculously efficient, clean, and well used. Just because lobbyists are directing all our infrastructure to the dead idea of highways and urban sprawl doesn't mean that subsidized rail is a bad idea. It means that rail and sensible land use aren't receiving as much money as they should.

The best illustration of the failure of US governance can be seen quite plainly in healthcare. I don't care what anecdote you have. Statistically, the rest of the world pays at least 35% less than what we do for health care, they live just as long, and they are happier with their system than we are with ours. This is because they have grown up and realized that the market solution is not always the best.

Another example is telecommunications infrastructure. Across the whole of Europe, well regulated broadband has covered nearly every inch of the continent with low cost, high speed internet access. Even in countries with similar population densities, like Norway and Sweden and Finland. Sure, you can find complaints. Give them the choice of a government option or a closed option like Comcast or AT&T, and you'll quickly discover that people don't want to be locked into a vendor. It would be like Georgia Power (where I live) only allowing Georgia Power appliances to use electricity. The liberation of American network access, if it ever happens, will be with corporations fighting to the bitter end to keep their profit margins intact, built not on their own dime, but the infrastructure subsidized by you and me from programs throughout the 90s.

You've swallowed wholesale the lie that corporations are better than government for everything. Just take a look at the 1880s before public outcry ended child slavery, 70 hour workweeks, unsafe working conditions, and crippling manual labor. That's the reality of corporate governance. These deplorable conditions didn't disappear, they were just outsourced to countries where the leaders are willing to exploit their workforce for kickbacks.

You can advocate an intelligent position, where corporations are kept in check by a more powerful and localized government, and the local government is kept in check by a powerful participatory democracy. Or you can advocate for the madness of money being the only metric by which success can be measured. You could munch on a Baconator while the rest of the world continues to improve through science and collective innovation, and we become an echo chamber of reality shows and televangelists and Fox News anchors, trying to convince a nation literally dying from it's own selfishness and gluttony that they're still #1.