1. See Emerson W. Pugh, Origins of Software Bundling, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, Jan.-Mar. 2002, at 57, 57-58; see also Simson Garfinkel, Database Nation: The Death of Privacy in the 21st Century 17-18 (2000).
2. Goeffery Austrian, Herman Hollerith: Forgotten Giant of Information Processing 52-53 (1982) (“Hollerith agreed to keep the machines in good condition and complete working order at his own expense. This mean[t] that he would also have to keep them proper[l]y connected. For, to tabulate different combinations of data, the wires leading from the press, where the holes on the cards were sensed, to the counters had to be resoldered between jobs. What was more, Hollerith was required to keep extra machines in readiness for ‘instant connection.'”).
3. Id. at 67. Hollerith’s invention made the 1890 Census notable not only for the time saved in processing the data, but also for the huge financial savings that resulted from its implementation. “Before the Census, the Commission conducting the competitive test had projected that the tabulating machines would save $597,125 over previous methods. . . . In actual use, the strange-looking statistical pianos would save more than two years’ time over the previous census and $5 million in taxpayers’ money.” Id. at 69.
4. See Kevin Maney, The Maverick and His Machine (2003) (discussing the transformation of Hollerith’s Tabulating Machine Company into IBM); Burton Grad, A Personal Recollection: IBM’s Unbundling of Software and Services, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, Jan.-Mar. 2002, at 64, 64-71.
5. See Watts S. Humphrey, Software Unbundling: A Personal Perspective, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, Jan.-Mar. 2002, at 59, 59-63 (“At the time of IBM’s unbundling decision, IBM management worried that the Justice Department would view bundling as an anticompetitive practice. . . . [Bundling] made it more difficult for small firms to compete with IBM in almost any part of the rapidly growing computer business.”); William D. Smith, I.B.M. Readjusts Pricing Formula, N.Y. Times, June 24, 1969, at 55.
6. See Lawrence O’Kane, Computer a Help to ‘Friendly Doc,’ N.Y. Times, May 22, 1966, at 348 (discussing the use of the Flexowriter for generating form letters for doctors’ offices); Friden Flexowriter, http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/friden/ (last visited Apr. 1, 2007) (showing images of the Flexowriter and discussing its history).
7. See Paul E. Ceruzzi, A History of Modern Computing 263-66, 268-69 (2d ed. 2003) (outlining the development of the modern personal computer for the period between 1977 and 1985); see also Mary Bellis, The History of the IBM PC–International Business Machines, http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa031599.htm (last visited Apr. 20, 2007) (describing the development of IBM’s first PC, which was released in 1981).
8. See Atari 8-Bit Computers: Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.faqs.org/faqs/atari-8-bit/faq/ (last visited Apr. 23, 2007); Computer History Museum, Timeline of Computer History: 1977, http://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/?year=1977 (last visited Apr. 20, 2007); Timex Sinclair 1000 Computer, http://oldcomputers.net/ts1000.html (last visited Apr. 20, 2007). But see Texas Instruments TI-99/4 Computer, http://oldcomputers.net/ti994.html (last visited Apr. 20, 2007) (describing how a user had to purchase a monitor with the computer because no legal RF modulator allowing connection to a television set existed).
9. See, e.g., Old-Computers.com, IBM PC-Model 5150, http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=274 (last visited Apr. 20, 2007).
10. See Winn L. Rosch, The Winn L. Rosch Hardware Bible 35-38 (6th ed. 2003).
11. While Radio Shack’s project kits don’t follow Moore’s Law, they have been growing in size. The latest kit is 1000-in-1. The number of possibilities has seen punctuated equilibriums. A 100-in-1 kit was available in 1971, a 65-in-1 in 1972, a 160-in-1 in 1982, and a 200-in-1 in 1981. A gallery of some of the kits can be found online. See Science Fair Electronic Project Kit, http://musepat.club.fr/sfair.htm (last visited Apr. 20, 2007).
12. Such a device works on the principle that liars sweat, sweat changes skin resistance, and the kit’s meter could measure it. See Aldert Vrij, Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Llying and the Implications for Professional Practice 175-92 (2000); Posting of Phillip Torrone to MAKE Blog, Lie Detector Electronic Kit and Circuit Explanation, http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2006/01/lie_detector_electronic_kit_an.html (Jan. 19, 2006, 04:14); Wikipedia, Galvanic Skin Response, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_skin_response (as of Apr. 21, 2007, 00:00 GMT).
13. See Paul Freiberger & Michael Swaine, Fire in the Valley: The Making of the Personal Computer 204 (2d ed. 2000).
14. Id. at 207.
15. Id. at 203, 214-15.
16. Id. at 164-65, 181-85.
17. See Martin Campbell-Kelly, From Airline Reservations to Sonic the Hedgehog: A History of the Software Industry 276-79 (2003).
18. Brent Schlender & Henry Goldblatt, Bill Gates and Paul Allen Talk, Fortune, Oct. 2, 1995, at 68-86; see also Microsoft Corporation, Inside Out: Microsoft–In Our Own Words (2000).
19. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301 (2000); Commission Decision No. Comp/C-3/37.792/ECC (2004); see also Steve Lohr, Antitrust Suit Turns into a Partnership for Microsoft, N.Y. Times, Oct. 12, 2005, at C2, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/12/technology/12soft.html; Choe Sang-Hun, Microsoft Settles Antitrust Suit over Windows in South Korea, N.Y. Times, Nov. 12, 2005, at C3; News Release, No. 45/04, European Union, EU Commission Concludes Microsoft Investigation, Imposes Conduct Remedies and a Fine (Mar. 24, 2004), available at http://www.eurunion.org/News/press/2004/20040045.htm; Keith Regan, Microsoft Says EU Overreached in Antitrust Case, E-Commerce Times, Apr. 23, 2006, http://technewsworld.com/story/49878.html.
20. See John Hagel & Marc Singer, Unbundling the Corporation, Harv. Bus. Rev., Mar.-Apr. 1999, at 133 (suggesting that the open architecture of the PC lowered costs of interaction between firms to the point where an “unbundled” market structure mutually benefited specialized producers of both hardware and software).
21. For documents related to the United States case, see U.S. Department of Justice, United States v. Microsoft: Current Case, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm. For information on the European Commission case, see Paul Meller, EC Still Objects to Microsoft: Antitrust Case Says Monopoly Abuses Are Continuing, S. F. Chron., Aug. 7, 2003, at B1, available at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/08/07/BU27986.DTL&type=business.
22. Grad, supra note 4.