[COFF] Re: Bell System and the Video Game Industry?

[steve jenkin <sjenkin@canb.auug.org.au>]

> On 4 Jul 2023, at 11:57, segaloco via COFF <coff@tuhs.org> wrote:
> 
> So this evening I've been tinkering with a WECo 2500 I've been using for playing with telecom stuff, admiring the quality of the DTMF module, and it got me thinking, gee, this same craftsmanship would make for some very nice arcade buttons, which then further had me pondering on the breadth of the Bell System's capabilities and the unique needs of the video game industry in the early 80s.
> 
> In many respects, the combination of Western Electric and Bell Laboratories could've been a hotbed of video game console and software development, what with WECo's capability to produce hardware such as coin slots, buttons, wiring harnesses for all sorts of equipment, etc. and then of course the software prowess of the Labs.
> 
> Was there to anyone here's knowledge any serious consideration of this market by Bell?  The famous story of UNIX's origins includes Space Travel, and from the very first manual, games of various kinds have accompanied UNIX wherever it goes.  It seems that out of most companies, the Bell System would've been very well poised, what with their own CPU architecture and other fab operations, manufacturing and distribution chains, and so on.  There's a looooot of R&D that companies such as Atari and Nintendo had to engage in that the Bell System had years if not decades of expertise in.  Would anti-trust stuff have come into play in that regard?  Bell couldn't compete in the computer market, and I suppose it would depend on the legal definitions applicable to video game hardware and software at the time.
> 
> In any case, undercurrent here is the 2500 is a fine telephone, if the same minds behind some of this WECo hardware had gone into video gaming, I wonder how different things would've turned out.
> 
> - Matt G.

Matt,

An astute question and one that, IMHO, deserves an answer because, if you’re asking, you never saw AT&T operate as a full throated monopoly.
A caveat, I wasn’t ever at Bell Labs, didn’t work in the USA but have talked to folk.

The short answer would be “Suits and Lawyers”.

Second part is the postscript in Rob Pike’s story / history of Music on the Plan 9 CD.

		P.S. No, I don’t have the music any more. Too sad to keep.

	<https://www.tuhs.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/tuhs@tuhs.org/message/H2XN5ONL3XAAUFVERXNYKS7QOZAOGBFA/>
	<https://fqa.9front.org/fqa0.html>

The people on this list who built software and made hardware would’ve put their case to ‘management’
and we know that the answer was “No”. The same response Ken got in 1969 when 127 asked for a PDP-10, forcing him to find the PDP-7.

If people haven't responded, it’s because decades later, it’s still too raw.


Rachel Chalmers in her 1999 article on John Lions, 
quotes Dennis Ritchie commenting on Western Electric’s control of Unix V7 and after:

	 "Code Critic” 
	<https://www.salon.com/1999/11/30/lions_2/ >

     "Even though in the 1970s Unix was not a commercial proposition,
     USG and the lawyers were cautious.
     At any rate, we in research lost the argument.” [ for cheap licences & teaching & commentaries ]

Chalmers concludes, on Mike Tilson et al at (real) SCO
making ‘legacy Unix’ source available for a nominal fee again. [ ?year?]
[ someone can correct me on versions & conditions ]

	"Research, at last, had won."

The Bell Labs researchers were very innovative and ‘curious’ - did a whole bunch of stuff in many fields.

That management & legal stance of ‘protecting’ all I.P. it could claim and trying to charge as much as it could,
how did it work out for them?

In 1974, Ken, Dennis et al launched Unix to the world via CACM.

In 1984, AT&T ‘demerged’ in the ‘Baby Bells’ and the new AT&T keeping Bells Labs, Western Electric (?) and ‘Long Lines’.

This allowed them to compete with IBM et al in Computers and Software (and vice versa, IBM bought Rolm & tried telephony)
With USL and the large number of Unix licences granted with _zero_ marketing and support,
I’m guessing the “smart managers” thought they’d create another massive fortune.

In 1994, AT&T sold off their Computers (to NCR) and Software (Unix) to Novel, who’d already paid for some of it.

 [ Novel sold on USL and some rights to SCO later, which led to the “new SCO” suit against The World, ]
 [ claiming Linux infringed its I.P. and it was owed gazillions in back payments from anyone who could even spell Linux. ]
 [ smarter people than me will correct this, I’m sure ]

In ~2004, AT&T was bought by one of the Baby Bells, SBC, which kept the name but changed the business culture.

The Proof is in the Pudding…

AT&T management in the 1960’s & 70’s thought they could ‘milk’ Unix and new IC-based computers in the same way
they’d milked the telephone business since Alexander Graham Bell invented a working telephone circa 1875.

Their mismanagement killed the business, causing Bell Labs as we knew it, to eventually fade away.

I hope that’s somewhat an answer for me, if not correct & complete, it also explains why the ‘combatants’
aren’t keen to talk about their experiences.

all my best
steve

--
Steve Jenkin, IT Systems and Design 
0412 786 915 (+61 412 786 915)
PO Box 38, Kippax ACT 2615, AUSTRALIA

mailto:sjenkin@canb.auug.org.au http://members.tip.net.au/~sjenkin