The most innovative guys in the room don't always win

ECON 1600, Fall 2013. R. Argento, S. Ashbrook, A. Higdon, D. Nagaraju, I. Vaa
1
ECON 1600 Graduate Project
Harvard University
Professor Wayland, Fall 2013
R. Argento, S. Ashbrook, A. Higdon, D. Nagaraju, I. Vaa
Abstract
The most innovative guys in the room don't always win – Imitation has been a
successful strategy for many leading companies in a variety of industries. Armen
Alchian’s 1950 article built off of Adam Smith’s prior notion of the “invisible hand,” when
Alchian introduced his evolutionary model of survival that included a firm’s “adaptive
behavior,” and the market’s “adoptive forces.” Alchian and others, hypothesize that
imitation enables a firm to build off of proven business models and product technologies
to avoid certain expense and risk associated with innovating. The purpose of this paper
to test that theory and find evidence of whether intentional imitation, as an adaptive
behavior, is indeed a proven business strategy for entrance and survival the market
place. Furthermore, can imperfect imitation lead to unplanned innovation, or what
Alchian calls “unconscious pioneering and leadership?” Imitation, conscious or
unconscious, has been claimed to be a successful adaptive strategy for many firms’
entrance and survival.
Imitation of Innovation
Armen Alchian suggested that, “the economic counterparts of genetic heredity,
mutations, and natural selection are imitation, innovation, and positive profits.” He
goes on to argue that imitation, conscious or unconscious, is analogous to genetic
heredity. In Charles Darwin’s seminal 1859 work On The Origin of Species, Darwin
explains heredity through the unconscious passing of traits from one generation to the
next. Darwin didn’t have much to say about genetic heredity; instead he used the
parlance of the day which was articulated as “inheritance of traits” from one generation
to the next. Darwin did however have something to say about the efficacy of imitation:
Now, if some one man in a tribe, more sagacious than the others, invented a new snare or
weapon, or other means of attack or defense, the plainest self-interest, without the assistance of
much reasoning power, would prompt the other members to imitate him; and all would thus profit.'
(Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 1871, p. 155)
Imitation as a business strategy has likely existed as long as there have been
commerce as measured by means of trade. According to Professor Wayland’s Class 1
Notes, Maritime trade is mentioned in Hammurabi’s Code as early as 2250 BC, and the

2
first coins appeared in Lydia, a part of modern Turkey, around the seventh century BC.
Some of these “business pioneers” must have thrived and gained massive amounts of
wealth. Prior to the inception of business, one of the most effective ways to gain wealth
was to pillage and plunder. In the genesis of trade and economy, civilization took a
great leap forward. It’s possible that savvy individuals saw the great wealth that these
early business pioneers accumulated as they toiled in their labor, which may have
included being an “employee” of these early firm principals. Our assumption is that a
savvy “employee” would have then taken what he learned from the principal’s firm and
replicated this business model.
Throughout history humans have imitated to survive -- both consciously and
unconsciously. Through birth, genes are unconsciously passed down from one
generation to the next. It’s believed by evolutionary theorists that “life” quite commonly
chooses the genes that will provide their progeny with the greatest chance for survival
(Dawkins, 1976) People also make conscious decisions to ensure their survival and the
survival of their family. Perhaps an effective way to guarantee the survival of one’s self
and one’s family is to accumulate as much wealth and power that one can ,in order to
help them adapt to their environment. One way to increase the probability that your
endeavor to gain wealth and power will be successful is to model the way in which your
“neighbor” has accumulated wealth and power. If a person lived in Portugal in the 15th
century and their “neighbor” had a very profitable business, traveling to and from Asia
participating in the Spice trade, someone savvy and nautically proficient might take up
that same route to accumulate wealth and the power that came with that wealth, thereby
increasing the probability that their family will survive and thrive in their environment.
Imitating, in its basic form, allows the imitator to take advantage of past
successes and past mistakes. Nelson and Winter’s 2002 article talks about the risk and
cost involved with innovation. They lay out the concept of a “dominant design,” that
emerges within the “Product Life Cycle,” that’s been adopted by the market. They go on
to say, “Firms whose products exemplify that dominant design do well, and firms that
are producing something else either have to switch-over, which is not easy to do, or
they fail.” Imitating the dominant design, once it has emerged and been adopted by the
market, can be a sound way for a company to enter and survive in the market. This
way companies are able to avoid certain cost and risk associated with innovating,
especially before a dominant design has emerged, when the industry is more unstable.
Not long before the internet revolution, at about the same time that functional
search engines that were used to mine the internet were coming to the market (actually
the first search engines input all of their data manually!), Steven Klepper was publishing
his article Entry, Exit, Growth and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle in The
American Economic Review. Klepper was building his product life cycle based upon the
product life cycle first introduced by William Abernathy and James Utterback in 1978 (as
cited in Nelson et al, 2002). Klepper stated in his PLC model that:

3
In order to be able to imitate costlessly the innovations of its rivals, which is required to market a
distinctive product variant and also the standard product, firms monitor the innovations of their
rivals at a cost of F per period. Thus, if a firm engaged in only product innovation and did not
produce the standard product, its expected profits in period t would be [si + g(rdit)] G - rdit - F. To
simplify the model, it is assumed that F > [si + g(rdit)] G - rdit for all rdit. This ensures that in order
to have non-negative expected profits, all firms must produce the standard product.
Klepper submitted in his model that imitation was indeed a profitable endeavor
and necessary for the survival from one period to the next. Nowhere is this more
effectively documented than in today’s technology vertical markets (Holden, 2012).
Practical examples of this are found in business model imitation.
Ryanair vs Southwest Airlines
Ryanair, the Irish low-cost airline, was established in 1985 to break the duopoly
held by British Airways and Aer Lingus on the route between Ireland and London. The
company experienced modest growth, mainly due to new EU regulations, until 1991
when the company determined it was in need of restructuring. The Irish businessman
Michael O’Leary was hired as deputy CEO of Ryanair and sent to the US to study
Southwest Airlines.1
Southwest Airlines is the world’s largest low-cost carrier, famous for its excellent
customer service, low prices and an exclusive experience. They are also innovative,
and one of the first airlines to offer gate-to-gate wi-fi on flights (Paul, 2013).
“We’re always looking at proposals that will reduce cost and reshape the airline
industry but always within the strict confines of safety. What you pay for is a seat on the
aircraft. We’ll get you there on time, safely and cheaper than any other airline,” said
O’Leary.
"We're the Southwest Airlines of Europe," O'Leary said to CNBC in June 2013
(Briggs, 2010), but while they were able to imitate the low cost airline philosophy of
Southwest Airlines, they have not been able to replicate Southwest’s customer service
(Pogatchnik, 2013). However, despite customer criticism, Ryanair has become one of
the most successful low cost airlines in Europe, with revenues that surpass the level
before the economic crisis.2
Lovefilm vs Netflix
The American company Netflix started its DVD rental via mail in 1997 and
introduced the concept of a monthly subscription instead of the single rental model in
1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryanair
2
Ryaniair Annual Report 2012
http://www.ryanair.com/doc/investor/2012/final_annual_report_2012_310712.pdf

4
1999.3
The DVD service also boasted no late fees and no shipping and handling fees.
In 2007 they expanded to offer video-on-demand via the internet.
Five years later, Online Rentals Limited, which later became LoveFilm,4
was
founded in the UK. The company’s business model imitated that of Netflix, offering
DVDs and streaming video via the internet for a monthly subscription fee. Lovefilm has
since become UK’s largest firm of its kind and has expanded to several European
countries, including the Scandinavian countries.
Amazon, who saw the potential for online DVD rental by observing Netflix,
bought Lovefilm in 2008 after their online DVD service failed. Lovefilm is now available
on German and British Amazon and as a Kindle Fire app.5
Netflix recently expanded to Europe by launching in the UK in 2012 and later to
the Scandinavian market. Netflix is gaining market shares against competitors in the
Scandinavian market,6
however, LoveFilm, with its imitative business model, still has an
upper hand in the UK market.7
These examples of business model imitation suggest that anytime a company
establishes a successful business model in a particular market, other companies will
follow, especially if that model has become the “dominant design” (Nelson and Winter,
2002). Imitation, as an adaptive behavior, enabled these companies to build off of
these proven business models and to avoid certain expense and risks associated
innovating. Alchian’s 1950 article says that:
Imitation is stimulated by 1) absence of identifiable decision criteria, 2) environmental variability,
3) the number of factors demanding attention and decisions, 4) uncertainty about outcomes, 5)
awareness of the need for relative competitive superiority, and 6) the absence of a trial and error
process to discover the optimum position.
These factors stimulate imitation in all industries, but this may be most evident
within products in the technology industry. The factors are applicable to both
incumbents and new tech startups entering the market. There is also a long history
within the technology industries with numerous examples that are built on imitation:
Apple vs. Xerox PARC in 1965, Microsoft vs. Apple in 1985 and Facebook vs.
Winklevoss twins (a special case) are explained below. One of the most recent past
being Rocket Internet, a Berlin-based internet incubator founded by Samwer brothers,
where they have cloned successful internet start-up companies similar to eBay,
Facebook, etc.
3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix
4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix
5
Ibid.
6
http://www.gjerrigknark.com/?choice=story&id=29981 (In Norwegian)
7
http://subscriptionsitecentral.com/lovefilm-struggles-to-maintain-uk-market-share-despite-savvy-growth-
strategy/

5
In today’s economy one needs to look no further than the cluster of start-ups and
technology firms in Silicon Valley to appreciate the amount of time and resources spent
on reverse engineering competitor’s products to imitate some feature or functionality
that will enable the firm to be at parity with their competition. Imitation has never
seemed to be more of a viable business strategy than where it resides in the technology
market (Holden, 2012). It could perhaps be that these sexy new companies with their
exciting new technology receive more press coverage than industries of past,
nonetheless, the internet and “legend” (perhaps not mutually exclusive) is replete with
examples of product imitation as a necessary means of innovation.
Apple vs Xerox PARC
In 1965 an employee of Stanford Research Institute named Doug Englebart
created a program called oN-Line System, which used the first mouse, and was based
on windows and hypertext to create the first Graphical User Interface (GUI). Based on
Englebart’s system a team of researchers from Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
(PARC) produced two working models called the Alto and the Star that contained icons,
pop-up menus and overlapping windows that could be easily controlled with a point-
and-click technique (Xerox PARC history, 2013). The Star was made available to the
public in 1981, but was considered very expensive with a price of $16,000, and suffered
from a low number of sales (only 25,000 units) (Hartman, 2011).
In 1979 Apple founder Steve Jobs, after negotiating for Xerox PARC to purchase
100,000 pre-IPO shares of Apple Computer for $1 million, brought a team of executives
and engineers to Xerox and was shown a number of PARC’s innovations, including the
potential of GUIs. This tour of the Xerox facility took place at the same time Apple was
working on the Lisa personal computer (Hartman, 2011). Afterwards Jobs successfully
negotiated with Xerox for his Lisa team to receive two demonstrations of ongoing
research projects at Xerox PARC. When the Apple team saw the demonstration of the
Alto computer they were able to see in action the basic elements of what constituted a
workable GUI (Polsson, 2009).
A great deal of work was put into making the graphical interface a mainstream
commercial product by the Lisa team. The Lisa was released in 1983, but despite its
functionalities, was a commercial failure to Apple because of its high price ($9,995 at
product launch), which made it unable to compete with other less expensive personal
computers (McGeever, 1985).
In 1984 the Apple Macintosh was introduced as an affordable personal computer
with a mouse that included a GUI. Much less expensive than Lisa, (with an initial selling
price of $2,495) the Macintosh was a huge success, selling over 70,000 units on its
initial release (Polsson, 2009).
Xerox later sued Apple in 1989, claiming that Apple's Macintosh and Lisa
computer software stemmed from work originally done by Xerox scientists. Xerox

6
sought more than $150 million in damages. According to Xerox, Apple used the work
without permission (Fisher, 1989). However, in 1990, Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the
Federal District Court in San Francisco dismissed five of the six copyright lawsuits filed
by Xerox (Pollack, 1990).
Apple noted the emergence of the Graphical User Interface (GUI) by Xerox, and
realized it was a dominant product design, so they imitated it, and licensed the
technology that wasn’t legal to imitate. Apple took a chance by imitating the GUI before
it had been established as a dominant design, but technology moves at a fast pace, and
being first to market, in this industry, can be very important.
Microsoft vs Apple
Inspired by the success of the Macintosh, in 1985 Microsoft Corporation released
the Windows 1.0, a GUI for the MS-DOS operating system, initially selling for $100. In
September 1985, Apple lawyers warned Microsoft's CEO Bill Gates that Windows
infringed on Apple copyrights and patents, and that his corporation had stolen Apple's
trade secrets. Windows had similar drop-down menus, tiled windows and mouse
support to that of Apple's operating system. Gates decided to make an offer to license
features of Apple's operating system. Apple agreed and a contract was drawn up
(Dalakov, 2013).
Microsoft released Windows 2.0 in 1987, with icons and overlapping windows,
similar to the Macintosh design. In 1990 Windows 3.0 was released with improvements
including program manager, icon system, a new file manager, support for sixteen
colors, improved speed and reliability, and third-party support (Dalakov, 2013). 3.0
became Microsoft’s first widely successful version of Windows.
In 1988, Apple sued Microsoft for copyright infringement of the Lisa and Apple
Macintosh GUI. Apple claimed the "look and feel" of the Macintosh operating system,
taken as a whole, was protected by copyright. After oral arguments, the court insisted
on an analysis of specific GUI elements that Apple claimed were infringements. Apple
listed 189 GUI elements, but the court decided 179 of these elements had been
licensed to Microsoft in the Windows 1.0 agreement and the remaining 10 elements
were not copyrightable (Andrews, 1993). The court case lasted 4 years before almost
all of Apple's claims were denied on a contractual technicality. Subsequent appeals by
Apple were also denied. Microsoft and Apple agreed to work out a settlement to the
long-standing dispute in 1997 (Kawamoto, Heskett, and Ricciuti, 1997).

7
Facebook vs Winklevoss twins
The Facebook vs Winklevoss imitation example is harder to assess than other
cases and can be viewed as a special case, but is still an interesting example
technology product imitation.
In 2003 Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss and their business partner Divya
Narendra, three students at Harvard University, worked on the initial concept of the
HarvardConnection project, a social networking site for Harvard students. They enlisted
another student, Sanjay Mavinkurve, to build the site (Naughton, 2011). When
Mavinkurve left the project to join Google, the Winklevoss twins and Narendra enlisted
Victor Gao, who also quit after some months of working on the project. They eventually
enlisted Mark Zuckerberg through an oral contract, who agreed to build the site in return
for equity in HarvardConnection.
However, Zuckerberg used his time to develop the site TheFacebook.com, a
social network based on the same concept as HarvardConnection. Between November
2003 and February 2004 Zuckerberg communicated with the twins though a series of 52
emails and personal meetings, without making significant progress in the
HarvardConnection project. Eduardo Saverin, another student at Harvard, invested
$15,000 for the servers needed to run TheFacebook.com (later renamed to Facebook),
and in return, received 30% of the company (Parr, 2011).
TheFacebook.com was launched in February 2004. After learning about the site
in The Harvard Crimson, the Winklevoss twins and Narendra sent Zuckerberg a cease
and desist letter.
HarvardConnection launched in May 2004, allowing users to add people as
friends, send messages and update personal profiles. It was later renamed to
ConnectU but it failed to gain traction and attract new users. ConnectU's founders filed
a lawsuit against Zuckerberg in 2004. After four years, in February 2008, the two sides
settled on an agreement. Facebook acquired ConnectU's assets in exchange for
1,253,326 shares and $20 million in cash (Parr, 2011). Facebook currently has over 1
billion users,8
and had revenue of over $5 billion and a gross profit of over $3.7 billion in
the year of 2012.9
The imitation of technology, both as a business model and a product model, can
have a far greater degree of uncertainty than in other industries. “When a technology is
new, there is uncertainty both about how the technology can improve and about what
the customers really want,” (Nelson and Winter, 2002). Nelson and Winter goes on to
label this technological change as “science based” and says it tends to favor innovation.
Joseph Schumpeter’s notions of “disequilibrium,” and “creative destruction,” point to the
8
Facebook Reports First Quarter 2013 Results, 2013
9
Facebook, Inc. Financial Statements", 2013

8
disruption that new technology can bring to an industry, especially the technology
industry itself.10
All of these factors must be taken into account in knowing when to
imitate. Imitating a new innovation, before it’s become a dominant design, can be risky.
If a firm waits to imitate until a dominant technological design has emerged, it may be
too late to enter the market. In the technology industry there can be more uncertainty in
regards to imitation of innovation than in other industries. "The best example of
uncertainty is in connection with the exercise of judgment or the formation of those
opinions as to the future course of events, which opinions (and not scientific knowledge)
actually guide most of our conduct (Knight, 1993).”
Imperfect Imitation and New Innovation
In some instances, firms will do their best to imitate other successful business
models and products in the marketplace. In the process of attempting to imitate a
certain product, without altering its “DNA” or established purpose in the market (Darwin,
1859), a firm can sometimes, unintentionally or unconsciously, create a successful
alternative product or a more efficient business model. Alchian states in his 1950 article
that, “… Even innovation is accounted for by imitation.” He goes on to say, “There are
those who, in their imperfect attempts to imitate others, unconsciously innovate by
unwittingly acquiring some unexpected or unsought unique attributes which under the
prevailing circumstances prove partly responsible for the success... and the notable
aspects of it here are the possibility of unconscious pioneering and leadership.”
Imperfect imitation can, at times, inadvertently produce unexpected innovation.
Charles Darwin observes this same unexpected innovation due to imperfect
imitation in the breeding of dogs. He notes:
A kind of Selection, which may be called Unconscious, and which results from everyone trying to
possess and breed from the best individual animals. Thus, a man who intends keeping pointers
naturally tries to get as good dogs as he can, and afterwards breeds from his own best dogs, but
he has no wish or expectation of permanently altering the breed. Nevertheless I cannot doubt that
this process, continued during centuries, would improve and modify any breed.
11
In The Power of Imitation (Posen, Lee and Yi, 2013) it is observed that many
successful companies have entered the market as imitators, even if it is an imperfect
imitation.
When firms exactly copy all attributes of the market leader, the rare, useful attributes in low
performing firms are neglected and discarded, as all firms very quickly come to resemble the
leading firm. Under imperfect imitation, these neglected attributes will be better preserved in low
10
Joseph Schumpeter is reference in the 2002 article by Nelson and Winter (Nelson, R. and Winter,S.
(2002). Journal of Economic Perspectives - volume 16, spring 2002. pg. 23-46.)
11
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. London, England: John Murray, p. 48-49
11
?

9
performing firms’ repertoires, and may be mixed with a subset of attributes obtained through
attempts to imitate superior firms. Occasionally, this enables a low performing firm to improve and
even surpass the market leader. As a consequence, these formerly neglected attributes are more
likely to be imitated and diffused throughout the industry. (Posen et al. 2013)
3M’s Post-It - Imperfect Imitation of Super Glue
In 1968, when Dr. Spencer Silver tried to improve 3M’s existing super glues, he
accidentally created a reusable adhesive, quite the opposite of a super glue.12
This
invention did not interest the management of 3M, because it seemed too weak to be
used for anything. However, the fact that you could peel whatever you glued away and
the reuse the glue was interesting, but Dr. Silver could not come up with a good use for
the glue. The Post-It note itself was not created until five years later when a colleague of
Dr. Silver came up with the idea of using the reusable glue for note pads.13
Today the
Post-It note, with its imperfectly imitated glue, is found in offices all around the world.
Conclusion
“Imitation of successful firms and practices, however those firms and practices
may have evolved or been selected for, is the most prominent form of adaptation
(Wayland, 2013).” “Imitation affords relief from the necessity of really making decisions
and conscious innovations, which if wrong, become ‘inexcusable’, (Alchain,1950).”
Nelson and Winter’s 2002 article talks about innovation and the emergence of a
“dominant design” within a product life cycle. Imitation can lessen the risk and cost of
innovating in an unstable industry or market, especially before a dominant design has
emerged.
When a technology is new, there is uncertainty both about how the technology can improve and
about what the customers really want. With time and accumulated efforts, one path or set of
pathways turn out to be effective… and a dominant design gradually emerges. Firms whose
products exemplify that dominant design do well, and firms that are producing something else
either have to switch-over, which is not easy to do, or they fail (Nelson, Winter 2002).
Imitating, once the dominant design emerges, can eliminate a great deal of risk
involved in this innovative process. Once the dominant design has emerged, and been
adopted by the market, imitators will also emerge to reap the benefits of past research
12
http://www.3m.com/cms/ca/en/1-30/rFzeEA/view.html
13
The colleague actually “stole” Dr. Silver’s ideam something he could do due to 3M’s “Permitted
Bootlegging” standard.

10
and development. Ryanair’s imitation of Southwest Airlines is an example of a
company adopting a proven dominant business model design within the airline industry.
Apple noted the emergence of the Graphical User Interface (GUI) by Xerox, and
predicted it would be a dominant product design, so they imitated it, and licensed the
technology that wasn’t legal to imitate.
The purpose of this paper was to test and find evidence of whether intentional
imitation, as an adaptive behavior, is indeed a proven business strategy for entrance
and survival the market place. Furthermore, could imperfect imitation lead to unplanned
innovation, or what Alchian calls “unconscious pioneering and leadership?” This
paper’s findings confirm that imitation of a dominant design has proven an effective
business strategy for many companies throughout numerous industries. Even imperfect
imitation can sometimes unintentionally produce new innovation, as in the example of
the Post-It-Note by 3M. If this new innovation is adopted by the market, and becomes
in itself a dominant design, this will spark the emergence of a new round of imitators
coming forth to take advantage of that proven business or product model. “Others, in
turn, will attempt to copy the uniqueness, and in the imitation-innovation process
continues,” (Alchian, 1950). This cycle of “imitation-innovation” can repeat itself over
and over to produce new innovation.
In 1950 Armen A. Alchian introduced his evolutionary model of survival that
included a firm’s “adaptive behavior,” and the market’s “adoptive forces.” This paper
confirms Alchian’s hypothesis that imitation plays a large role in this evolutionary model,
both as a successful adaptive behavior, and as an accidental innovator in which the
market may adopt. Imitation, as an adaptive behavior, enables a firm to build off of
proven business models and product technologies to avoid certain expense and risk
associated with innovating. Imitation, conscious or unconscious, has proven a
successful strategy for many firms entrance and survival in the market.

11
Bibliography
Andrews, P. (1993, June 02). Apple-Microsoft Lawsuit Fizzles To A Close -- `Nothing Left' To
Fight About. The Seattle Times. Retrieved from
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930602&slug=1704430
Briggs, B. (2010, Sep 10). Outlandish Idea to Lower Airfares Come at a Price. NBC News.
Retrieved from
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39082695/#.Up9AUmRDsw9
Dalakov, G. (2013) Microsoft Windows. History of Computers. Retrieved from http://history-
computer.com/ModernComputer/Software/Windows.html
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. London, England: John Murray, p. 48-49.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. ISBN 0-19-286092-
5
Facebook, Inc. Financial Statements. (2013). Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:FB&fstype=ii&ei=000LUahGxqaVBfunAQ
Facebook Reports First Quarter 2013 Results. (2013). Retrieved from
http://investor.fb.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=761090
Fisher, L. (1989, December 15). COMPANY NEWS; Xerox Sues Apple Computer Over
Macintosh Copyright. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-
macintosh-copyright.html?src=pm
Knight, F. (1993). Risk, Uncertainty, and the Firm: A New Interpretation,” Economic Inquiry Vol.
XXXI, July 1993, p. 456-465.
Hartman, C. (2011, June 02). A brief, early history of Xerox PARC and the development of the
personal computer. High Tech History. Retrieved from http://hightechhistory.com/2011/06/02/a-
brief-early-history-of-xerox-parc-and-the-development-of-the-personal-computer/

12
Holden, D. (2012). Apple-Samsung Verdict: Imitation is Just Lazy Design. Retrieved from The
SV411 website: http://www.sv411.com
Kawamoto, D., Heskett, B., & Ricciuti , M. (1997, August 06). Microsoft to invest $150 million in
Apple. CNET. Retrieved from
http://archive.is/20120530223706/http://news.com.com/MS+to+invest+150+million+in+Apple/21
00-1001_3-202143.html
Lassiter, J. B., & Gardner, D. S. (2006). MarketSoft. Harvard Business School, Case Study, 9-
800-069.
McGeever, C. (1985, June 21). Apple's Lisa Meets a Bad End. Infoworld.
Pollack, A. (1990, March 24). Most of Xerox's Suit Against Apple Barred. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-suit-against-
apple-barred.html
Naughton, J. (2011, January 16). Facebook legal battle: Why the two heads of the Winklevoss
twins weren't better than one. The Guardian. Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jan/16/facebook-zuckerberg-winklevoss-legal-
battle
Nelson, R. and Winter,S. (2002). Journal of Economic Perspectives - volume 16, spring 2002.
p. 23-46.
Parr, B. (2011, April 13). Facebook's Complicated Ownership History Explained. Mashable.
Retrieved from http://mashable.com/2011/04/13/facebooks-complicated-ownership-history-
explained/
Paul, I. (2013, Nov 21). Southwest becomes first airline to offer gate-to-gate Wi-Fi. PC World.
Retrieved from
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2065476/southwest-becomes-first-airline-to-offer-gate-to-gate-
wi-fi.html
Pogatchnik, S. (2013, Sep 24). No-frills Ryanair admits it may have an image problem. USA
Today. Retrieved from
http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2013/09/24/no-frills-ryanair-admits-it-may-have-
an-image-problem/2858855/
Polsson, K. (2009, July 29). Chronology of Apple Computer Personal Computers, p. 3.
Thompson, David M. (2012). Phoenix Global Wealth Monitor-U.S. Market Summary Report Key
Findings- End-Cycle 2011-12.

13
Wayland, R (2013) Class 3 Notes, Harvard University Extension School, ECON 1600 Fall 2013,
p. 19.
Xerox PARC history. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.parc.com/about/

The most innovative guys in the room don't always win

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to The most innovative guys in the room don't always win

Similar to The most innovative guys in the room don't always win (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The most innovative guys in the room don't always win