The first reason I believe the theft was justified is because many companies used off the shelf hardware. When IBM built their first personal …show more content…
computer, they used off the shelf parts for every component of their computer except the ROM/BIOS chip. This made it easy for Compaq, a company set on competing with IBM directly, to make a ‘clone’ of IBM’s PC. All Compaq had to do was use similar off the shelf components and reverse engineer the ROM/BIOS chip to be able to sell this product as their own. I think if IBM had built all of the components for their PC in house, it would have taken other computers much longer to come to market with a clone if at all.
The second reason I believe theft was justified at this time was because leading companies were moving too slow in a rapidly changing and expanding industry. IBM was infamous for being a slow working company, in that it took forever for projects to be approved and carried out. According to Rich Seidner, a former IBM Programmer, “...it would take at least nine months to ship an empty box.” (need more here)
The third reason I believe the theft was justified was because executives of companies did not think the ideas of their engineers were as revolutionary as the engineers themselves thought they were. Due to this reason, companies like Xerox ended up missing a huge opportunity in the personal computer market. Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). Was working on a graphical user interface, a project that would go on to help revolutionize the personal computer industry, but it was not Xerox who brought it to market. Steve Jobs was given a tour of Xerox’s PARC division, he was shown three things, the first thing was object oriented programming, the second was a network of Xerox’s own Altaire computers connected via ethernet, but according to Jobs, he didn’t notice any of that, the thing that blew him away so much was the third thing, a graphical user interface. Jobs stated, “From the moment I saw it, I knew this was the future of computing.” Later on Jobs requested a demo of the graphical user interface for his engineers which the executives granted him.
Is theft ever really justified, the answer has to be a resounding no.
Even from the very earliest of times, stealing has always been condemned and seen as morally wrong. In the caveman days, if one caveman stole from the other, the first would bludgeon the other one over the head protecting what was rightfully his. In the Bible, the Ten Commandments, a list of guidelines most members of Western Society adhere to and follow faithfully, states number eight as “Thou shalt not steal”. Breaking any one of the Commandments was, and still is, considered committing a “mortal sin”. In the time of the “Old West” era, it one man stole another man’s horse, the “convicted” man would hang from the closest tree. Over the last 80 years or so, theft has become more commonplace and acceptable, and the severity of the crime dictates whether or not the act is even punishable by law. Over time, the moral correctness “lines” have become blurred and even ignored; however, the person doing the stealing or committing the theft, knows deep down what they are doing is wrong, plain and
simple.
In conclusion, “good artists copy, great artists steal”, a famous quote first coined over 100 years ago is still very relevant today and can be seen during the infancy of the computer industry. In my paper I have given three compelling reasons showing how theft was rampant in the early stages of the computer boom: off the shelf hardware, moving to slowly in a rapid developing industry, and executives not believing in the ideas of their engineers.