Re:US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case
by nickff on Wednesday October 09, 2024 @12:51PM
(#41790015)
Because you specifically mention Alan Kay, I just finished reading “Dealers of Lightning”, which is about PARC, and says that the researchers there were very handsomely paid. IIRC, they were paid 20% more than their counterparts in ‘regular’ Xerox R&D. Xerox was also a big company, making a lot of money when it started PARC; arguably a monopoly (depending on how you define the term).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case
by thefaux on Wednesday October 09, 2024 @03:12PM
(#41791562)
That still doesn't prove that Kay worked there because of the financial incentives. I don't think that 20% is nearly enough for most top talent to bail to an otherwise less attractive company if they deeply care about what they're working on so long as they aren't wildly underpaid. There needs to be a combination of incentives to drive movement.
Re:US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case
by nickff on Wednesday October 09, 2024 @03:17PM
(#41791619)
I don't know how you could prove or disprove why Kay worked somewhere fifty years ago, short of a written affidavit produced at the time. Additionally, most professionals don't admit that they took a job because of the pay, even if that's exactly why they did it; they usually say they 'went for a new challenge' or something like that.
Re:US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case
by Apocryphon on Wednesday October 09, 2024 @11:33PM
(#41795248)
You could potentially determine it by comparing other companies he could've gone to work for, such as say IBM, and determine their pay in comparison.