Photon Capital: A Subsidy for Photonic Entrepreneurs

  • Carl W. Nelson

Abstract

Small entrepreneurial companies, with their clear agility advantage over the giants, created America’s information technology industry. They started their corner of the industry with little help from government which favored the giants’ mainframe mindset. Microsoft, Intel, and Apple became common names after Xerox developed (and let go) the seeds of new industries: laser printer, desk-top, mouse. A few giants (Motorola, Hewlett-Packard, AT&T) then furnished the new industry with an infrastructure that could only come from giant investments that the revolutionaries could neither raise nor implement. Some of the gnats rose into that class, like Intel which has invested billions in chip fabrication facilities.

Keywords

Venture Capital Mutual Fund Initial Public Offering Wall Street Journal Private Capital 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    See for example RR Nelson, PM Romer, “Science, Economic Growth, and Public Policy”, Challenge, Vol 39, March 1966,Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fineman S and Fuentevilla W, Indicators of International Trends in Technological Innovation, Gelman Research Associates, Report to the NSF, 1976;Google Scholar
  3. 2a.
    Armington C, Harris C, Olds M, Formation and Growth in High Technology Businesses: A Regional Assessment, The Brookings Institution, Report NSF/ISI-3–83016, September 30, 1983Google Scholar
  4. 2b.
    Cooper AC, “R&D Is More Efficient in Small Companies”, Harvard Business Review, p75–83, May/June l964Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    Romeo A A and Rapoport J, Social Versus Private Returns to the Innovations by Small Firms Compared to Large Firms, University of Connecticut study for SBA (NTIS PB85–196996), July 1984;Google Scholar
  6. 3a.
    Dearden J, Ickes BW, Samuelson L, “To Innovate or Not to Innovate: Incentives and Innovation in Hierarchies”, The American Economic Review, Dec 1990;Google Scholar
  7. 3b.
    Achs ZJ and Audretsch AB, “Innovation in Large and Small Firms: An Empirical Analysis”, The American Economic Review, 78, p678–690, 1988;Google Scholar
  8. 3c.
    Markusen AR, Hall P, Glasmeier A, High Tech America: The What, How, Where, and Why of the Sunrise Industries, Allen and Unwin, Boston, 1983Google Scholar
  9. 4.
    US General Accounting Office, Federal Research: Small Business Innovation Research Shows Success but Can Be Strengthened, Report GAO/RCED-92–37, 1992Google Scholar
  10. 5.
    see descriptions in CW Nelson, “Wavelength Division Mini-Money: Small Subsidies for Small Business”, paper at SPIE International Symposium, Photonics West, Jan 1996, to be published by SPIE.Google Scholar
  11. 6.
    Data from Community of Science, on the Web at http://cos.gdb.org/best/fedfund/sbir/sbir-intro.html
  12. 7.
    “1996 Hot Growth Companies”, Business Week, May 27, 1996Google Scholar
  13. 8.
    “Show Time”, Inc, May 1996Google Scholar
  14. 9.
    A Marr, Ruling Britannia: The Failure and Future of British Democracy, Michael Joseph, London, 1995Google Scholar
  15. 10.
    AE Bell, “Next-Generation Compact Discs”, Scientific American, July 1966, pp42–46Google Scholar
  16. 11.
    “Correlation is now causation”, The Economist, May 4, 1996Google Scholar
  17. 12.
    RD Hof, “Silicon Dreamers vs. The PC”, Business Week, May 13, 1996, p78–80Google Scholar
  18. 13.
    “The death of distance: A Survey of telecommunications”, The Economist, Sept 30, 1995Google Scholar
  19. 14.
    TC Draper, “The Return of Can-Do Entrepreneuralism”, Upside, February 1996, on the Web at http://www.upside.com/resource/print/9602/vv9602.htmlGoogle Scholar
  20. 15.
    Source: Venture Economics, quoted by M Selz, Wall Street Journal, May 14,1996, pB2Google Scholar
  21. 16.
    Source: VentureOne Corp, quoted by ZA Herlick, “Venture Capital Roundup”, The Red Herring, Farch 94, Issue 9, on the Web at http://www.herring.com/mag/issue09/capital.htmlGoogle Scholar
  22. 17.
    D Lohse, “Small Issues’ Big Gains May Hold for Long Haul”, Wall Street Journal, April 29, 1996, pClGoogle Scholar
  23. 18.
    “No Tech, No Takers”, Inc, May 1996, p45Google Scholar
  24. 19.
    M Shah, quoted in The Red Herring Guide to Technology Finance, Spring 1996, pl7Google Scholar
  25. 20.
    C Gould, “Why Small Stocks Are Leading the Parade”, The New York Times, May 26, 1996Google Scholar
  26. 21.
    Source: Lipper Analytic Services, quoted Wall Street Journal, July 3, 1996Google Scholar
  27. 22.
    M Moritz, quoted by S Kaufman, “Good ideas get early help from venture incubators”, San Jose Mercury News, Feb 19, 1996, on Web at http://www.sjmercury.com/business/venture/vent219.htmGoogle Scholar
  28. 23.
    “Venture Capitalists Pour over $2.2 Billion into Firms”, Wall Street Journal, May 2, 1996, quoting study by Coopers and Lybrand, pB2Google Scholar
  29. 24.
    Source: Securities Data Corp, quoted in Fortune, May 13, 1996, p187Google Scholar
  30. 25.
    Source: National Venture Capital Association, quoted by M Selz, Wall Street Journal, May 14, 1996, pB2Google Scholar
  31. 26.
    D Lohse, “Investors Try to Tally Value of Tech Issues”, quoting B Lupatkin, Wall Street Journal, May 6, 1996Google Scholar
  32. 27.
    J Wyatt, “America’s amazing IPO bonanza”, Fortune, May 27, 1996, p76–80Google Scholar
  33. 28.
    C Morgan, quoted by J Burke, “Getting to an IPO”, The Red Herring, January 1996Google Scholar
  34. 29.
    DT Gleba, “No End in Sight for the Info Technology Boom”, Upside, May 1966, p82Google Scholar
  35. 30.
    S Tully, “How to make $400,000,000 in just one minute...”, Fortune, May 27, 1996, p85–92Google Scholar
  36. 31.
    R Braham, “The Air Force R&D Balancing Act”, IEEE Spectrum, March 1996Google Scholar
  37. 32.
    HL Poppell, M Toole, “The Bleeding Edge of Information Technology”, The Red Herring, August 1995, on the Web at http://www.herring.com/mag/issue22/bleeding.htmlGoogle Scholar
  38. 33.
    DT Campbell, JC Stanley, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design for Research, Rand-McNally, Chicago, 1963. [When Campbell died in May 1996 at age 79, The New York Times obit misdated his classic work]Google Scholar
  39. 34.
    S Moore, D Stansel, “How Corporate Welfare Won: Clinton and Congress Retreat from Cutting Business Subsidies”, CATO Policy Analysis No 254, May 15, 1996, available from The CATO Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Ave, Washington, DC 20001 or on the Web at http://www.cato.org Google Scholar
  40. 35.
    McDonald S, “Theoretically sound: practically useless? Government grants for industrial R&D in Australia”, Research Policy, 15, p269–283, 1986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 36.
    S Brittan, Capitalism with a Human Face, Edward Elgar, London, 1993Google Scholar
  42. 37.
    D Takahashi, “But shed no tears: Dividend boosted”, San Jose Mercury News, May 18, 1996Google Scholar
  43. 38.
    G Gilder, quoted by P Bronson, “George Gilder”,Wired, March 1966, p122Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carl W. Nelson
    • 1
  1. 1.Carl Nelson Consulting, IncUSA

Personalised recommendations