I think the claim that Bell Labs could not have existed without being part of a monopoly is unscientific at best. Sample size 1.
My understanding of economics would beg to differ with that conclusion, but I don't think we'll get anywhere arguing economics. However, here is something that seems faulty in the text you quoted.
The expectation that, say, Google or Apple could behave like Bell Labs—that such companies could invest heavily in basic or applied research and then sprinkle the results freely around California—seems misplaced, if not naive
I think Google has, indeed, been investing in applied research and sprinkling the results freely around. Off the top of my head, without thinking, there is Go (the language), and the fact that they employ Guido van Rossum. And their developers can (at least sometimes) use 10% of their time on whatever (including open source) - so if 1% of developers' time is actually spent on open source, Google is investing 1% of its payroll money (i.e., hugely) in "sprinking technology around."
I bet I could come up with a bunch more stuff they do "for free," if I thought about it more.
And I bet Google has plenty of money to throw around - a certain amount of research is just "pocket change" to them. I suspect that's pretty much the way things worked at Bell Labs, at least in terms of "free technology" that was being dispersed.
Of course, you can increase the level of innovative research through patents (and also kill it, if you do it wrong).
They might be examples research (cutting edge too) but from Bell came:
Karnaugh Maps, Transistor + MOSFET, Unix, C (this spans at least 1 to 2 years of any EE/CS curriculum). They won (at least) 2 nobel prizes in physics.
From IBM research:
LASIK, Networking, DRAM, Leo Esaki + 2 other physics nobel prizes, fractal geometry, ATM, relational databases, vacuum tubes etc.
I don't think a comparison is even possible. (Not to take a cheap shot at anyone - Google has been the single biggest contributor to the delta between my parents' and my generation - they didn't have internet + IR to answer their questions and I have used their services for a large part of my life and they are doing some sweet-sweet things all the time)
Overall, the formula seems to be the same - collect super-smart people, give them freedom and see the magic happen. From what I see, the PR boost each of those contributions brought might have resulted in a net positive (not to mention, being a potential destination for people with immense knowledge of their domains has to be a HR win).
I think Google has, indeed, been investing in applied research and sprinkling the results freely around. Off the top of my head, without thinking, there is Go (the language), and the fact that they employ Guido van Rossum.
Really bad examples. Neither of those is research, basic or applied.
Google's driverless car project has been around for more than 7 years and there's still no immediate plan for commercialization. I'd consider that research (at the very least it's applied AI research).
No, because it has absolutely massive commercialization potential.
Whereas my "really bad examples" are much more in line with the "only monopolies have so much money they just give stuff away" premise of the whole discussion.
My understanding of economics would beg to differ with that conclusion, but I don't think we'll get anywhere arguing economics. However, here is something that seems faulty in the text you quoted.
The expectation that, say, Google or Apple could behave like Bell Labs—that such companies could invest heavily in basic or applied research and then sprinkle the results freely around California—seems misplaced, if not naive
I think Google has, indeed, been investing in applied research and sprinkling the results freely around. Off the top of my head, without thinking, there is Go (the language), and the fact that they employ Guido van Rossum. And their developers can (at least sometimes) use 10% of their time on whatever (including open source) - so if 1% of developers' time is actually spent on open source, Google is investing 1% of its payroll money (i.e., hugely) in "sprinking technology around."
I bet I could come up with a bunch more stuff they do "for free," if I thought about it more.
And I bet Google has plenty of money to throw around - a certain amount of research is just "pocket change" to them. I suspect that's pretty much the way things worked at Bell Labs, at least in terms of "free technology" that was being dispersed.
Of course, you can increase the level of innovative research through patents (and also kill it, if you do it wrong).