No. Personal computers were around for quite a while before IBM decided to enter the market (with a not very good and very expensive machine, I should add).
The PC mantle probably goes to Processor Technology, or maybe someone a little earlier. I'm counting 8-bit chipsets, the date gets pushed back a LOT farther if you're talking PDP-8s or earlier systems (much less commonly available to the public). Or you could take it forward to 1977/78 and give the title to Apple.
But it's definitely not IBM.
If you're trying to say that IBM was the first to officially name a personal computer "PC", I'll give you that one.
Most other makers, from Apple to Amiga, vigorously protected their small private markets where they dominated. The original Macintosh has explicitly removed all the expansion capabilities that e.g. Apple II had.
Rushing to market led to the decision to license the OS from Bill Gates instead of buying the OS or writing it in-house.
An example of a false assumption would be believing that holding the copyright on the BIOS would be enough prevent clones.
Werner von Braun has lead the US space program to launching humans to LEO, and then to the Moon.
Again, technology is morally oblivious. A sword that only serves a noble aim is strictly the stuff of fairy tales, and is not implementable in the real world (no, not even with an AGI, since humans are a reasonably good approximation of an AGI).
I may be the only one who giggles when driving past the Werner von Braun Center on Redstone Arsenal. It a very attractive, very new part of Army Missile Command.
Some technology has only one purpose, and is used only for immoral acts. An example of this would be any device invented for torture.
While those examples are uncommon, more technology is built expressly for evil acts, even if it has the capacity for good. If you are distributing plans and technology to make "dirty bombs" - devices intended to disperse lethal amounts of radiation - it's impossible for a reasonable person to believe that it is not intended to murder people via radiation. Furthermore, in the context of today's world, you know that the most likely users of such a device would be terrorist organizations who will target innocent civilians.
An even greater percentage of technology is developed to support people doing evil acts. If you provide software or hardware to people doing evil acts (in this case, the Holocaust), you are giving them material aid. The software written to tabulate Jewish residents in Germany was developed for the Nazi party. Technical support and sales continued well after Nazi Germany had invaded Poland.
The fact that a man (or company) enriched himself by doing both bad and good things does not mean that his actions were morally neutral. Most people alive have done both bad and good things.
There are certain devices, like napalm bombs, that have a narrow and specific purpose of destruction. But the technologies used to make the bomb shells or the napalm are not specific, and have all kinds of peaceful and constructive uses.
Equally, there can be bad, evil-pursuing programs in a particular general purpose language, but this does not taint that language.
For example, if you have two people arguing without weapons, the likely outcomes of the situation aren't strongly weighted towards one or both of the participants being maimed or killed --- it's difficult and requires commitment to really cause horrific damage if you're just hitting each other.
If you introduce a (supposedly value-neutral) tool, like a gun, into the situation, the outcomes become much more strongly weighted towards someone being maimed or killed.
Even though it's always a human using the tool, the tool itself can be seen as having an ethical character.
It also invented PC.