[chimeracoder]

> If they invent and implement as many things as Bell I'm almost ok with that.

Maybe, but I wouldn't compare Google with Bell Labs directly.

Remember that the only reason we had access to so much of what Bell Labs invented (e.g. Unix) is due to a 1958 antitrust lawsuit which resulted in AT&T being prohibited from profiting off of the computer business entirely[0]. As a result, Bell Labs had to license all technologies (except for telephone-related services) freely.

It wasn't until 1984 when AT&T sold off Bell Labs - almost three decades later. If AT&T had been allowed to profit off of Bell Labs, we might remember Bell Labs's legacy very differently.

If Google were subject to an analogous requirement that would be one thing, but absent that legal restriction, the two situations are very different.

[0] http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch02s01.html

[reportingsjr]

You are very correct. It is still a valuable thing to have a research company where researchers and designers do not have to worry nearly as much about money.

AT&T/Bell Labs was a government regulated monopoly so it is definitely a different situation. AT&T watched very closely what they profited off of and made sure it stayed within the realm of telecommunications for fear of antitrust lawsuits.

Regardless even if no one else can access it for the first decade or two many innovations would still make their way out into other places.