24 Comments
User's avatar
Douglas Natelson's avatar

As a former Bell Labs postdoc, I think there is a lot to what you're saying. The key aspect that you don't discuss explicitly here, though, is the need for sustained financial support at least somewhat decoupled from short-term shareholder pressure. Norm Augustine late of LMCO has told the story of how when he announced the establishment of a Lockheed-Martin long-term research lab, the stock dropped 10%. The decline of long-term blue-sky research in industry in the US is correlated with the rise of large-scale institutional investors and greatly increased investor pressure to focus on short-term numbers.

I also think you somewhat mischaracterize university research. Junior faculty at strong research universities are, in fact, hired to set up independent labs and set their own research directions. They are very often the kinds of driven, semi-obsessive people you mention. They're not writing grants for fun - they're doing so because that's the dominant way to get the resources needed to hire students and postdocs. A natural trade-off is that university research involves the training of those people, while a place like Bell Labs presumes a ready supply of skilled researchers.

Steve Franks's avatar

This --> "... but in his model, he wasn't their employer — he was their patron."

zan's avatar

three words: professional managerial class.

not sovereign, monopoly driven profits, but PMC commingling with other PMC.

Manny have tried to create bell labs and failed, most notably google. why? because back then, there was no venture capital. crazy explorers had no way to gain capital, and weren't built for the transactional nature of business. so they could be selected and gathered.

when google tried it, it made no sense. why work on the idea within google when you can start your own company? when everybody is telling you to start your own company, dangling checks and autonomy (with concomitant fiduciary responsibility) before you? so google lost at talent selection and incentive design (no equity).

it's different now. now it's like the old times again, since few can supply 10+ figures, it's back to the sovereign patron model.

in essence, patronage requires sovereign capital, not PMC capital.

and sovereign capital requires sovereigns.

Jay Dillon's avatar

All very sad and almost all true; but your third photograph is wrong. It was taken at Allied Chemical not Bell Labs.

areoform's avatar

Fantastic catch! I first saw a colorized version here, https://blog.adafruit.com/2012/02/27/innovation-and-the-bell-labs-miracle/ and when I reverse image searched it — I saw an auction listing that stated it was Bell Labs https://www.artnet.com/artists/elliott-erwitt/bell-labs-new-jersey-HWq21swkIOCnpkBZnPjKCw2

Thanks for making me take a closer look! I'm replacing it with a better image!

Freely's avatar

Thanks for this — the article and the endeavor. It was passed to me by my friend {A}, so I felt to share this:

https://open.substack.com/pub/freelyfreely/p/beyond-the-coop-reimagining-knowledge

amit's avatar

holy shit im 19 and this article might of changed my entire POV. currently reading chris dixons book but seriously this was a enjoyable read as compared to that. This would by my top 10 substack articles i have read this year, you touched on all the points of human innovation and and have such huge scape to showcase everything with our deeper society, and lack of innovation due to what I would argue is a cultural and post modern mba bubble, our culture or lack thereof has made our children want for fame not pleasure in learning or innovation.

Rita Sakus's avatar

This is absolutely brilliant! Can’t wait to see what comes out of 1517. Thrilled to be following your inspirational journey starting today!

Purely functional's avatar

> 1517’s Flux that invests $100k in people, no questions asked and lets them explore for a few months without demanding KPIs or instantaneous progress.

Thanks for creating this program! I have to ask though: is it really only a few months? Industry labs like Microsoft Research and tenure track positions at universities usually allow for 5-6 years before expecting a big result

Alex's avatar

Wonder if this was inspired by severance

Thingamajig's avatar

I did a ctrl-F on the word "monopoly", which doesn't appear in your article. Bell Labs was funded by the AT&T monopoly, full stop. It wasn't "MBA culture" that killed Bell Labs - it just wasn't possible to fund the central lab with the same time horizons any more after the breakup.

Today, the equivalent companies (Google, Meta, Microsoft...) have similar labs, although they focus on much nearer term goals, because these companies are losing their monopolies a lot faster than AT&T.

ChinniKrishna's avatar

Beautifully written, much needed article for this era.

Michael Aronstein's avatar

As AI becomes ubiquitous for closed form problem solving, creative eccentricity is going to become the differentiating factor. management by technocratic experts will go by the wayside, along with the academic and political systems promoting that approach—just not soon enough.

Freedom Sherpa's avatar

fascinating the world of innovation. I find us working in the quantum field powered by zero point energy through the heart and math being doneby the AI.

The structure and the culture is super important. Enivornment and culture trumps motivation every time. My partner created a flexible founder mode... Your and his methods sound innovative. Thanks for this insight. Cheers,

Brian

Ronald Richards's avatar

So very true. And, how many Patented Nobel Prize winning, life-changing ideas have emerged from the list of 'more prolific' firms you mentioned? And, whose people have gone on to 'green the Ivy' at so many top universities and their STEM programs? - me...Bell Labs Holmdel, NJ 1989-91.