Thanks, Ed! So it’s a combination of high initial price, exponential depreciation, and enormous costs of operation…meaning that it costs multiples of the purchase price to own and operate these devices that loose most of their value in 3-5 years (if they don’t melt at 100% utilization 24/7/365)?

Honest question: I don’t really understand how one can attribute negative gross margin for the *purchaser* of a device? Would you mind explaining that for readers like me?

Where is this?!

I don’t understand how innovation could be self generating. What could that possibly mean?

Reading this article is how I learned about this whole thing! It's so great.

Does this prefigure the kind of foreign subsidiary tax shenanigans that the large technology companies all use today? Is it how US tech came to learn of this tax avoidance strategy? Or was this already commonplace in the 1960s among US manufacturing firms? /3 and end

Would this have allowed these US IC makers to "sell" the unassembled IC die to the South Korean subsidiary and then have all the sales of the final ICs exported booked to the foreign subsidiary, and thus remain untaxed in South Korea and at least partially untaxed in the US? /2

I believe a thread on this website.

Think about what Andy Grove would say about these guys.