Eric Nilsson writes 2/12: >The fact that Bill Gates came to play the role he did and the rise of Microsoft is a perfect example of "path dependency" aka historical contingency--IBM could have easily chosen an operating system to use in their PC that was not Gates' DOS. Absent this choice by IBM (and the later success of Lotus 123) Microsoft and its impact (or perhaps "role") would not have come into being. The software market might have been quite different.< Actually, what became MS-/PC-DOS was not Gates's development. He bought the rights to a CPM version developed by Seattle Software (which actually retained rights to produce at least one more generation of the system). CPM was developed by, if I remember, Gary Kildall. IBM chose not to adopt CPM as its favored OS because Kildall annoyed them by not being sufficiently button-down. Gates knew how to present himself so as to reassure IBM (and knew enough to do it, instead of valuing his individuality above all). However, IBM did try to sell CPM -- at a higher price than PC-DOS -- for some time before giving up. Lotus 123 was a refinement/competitor of VisiCalc, developed by Dan Bricklin and someone else whose name just escaped me. I don't remember if 123 was ever available in a CPM or other non-MS-/PC-DOS version. The fact that I can't remember suggests that by the time Lotus came along, the contest to be the dominant OS was pretty much over. That is, I don't think Lotus had all that much effect on Microsoft's position. Indeed, Microsoft's development of 123-alternative Excel (including its being relatively easy to learn and use by users of other MS applications) was, I think, much more significant in Gates's company's ascendancy. Which goes to show that it is not creating or writing software, but bringing it to market in a way which most nearly matches what the market wants (with guidance), which is Gates's true contribution -- that, and his ability to recognize, hire, develop, encourage, and keep developers and so on who are up to the challenges he continually throws at them, as he continuously reads the market. Which is to say that there was no structure to which Gates responded, which was not also a structure which he in part created. Gates defined the role in filling it. But he did so by recognizing and adapting to those structures and roles which he found existing in the world in which he wanted to move. How much he internalized the existing structure, and how much only used it, is so unknowable that it may not even be a sensible question to ask. Michael Etchison [opinions mine, not the PUCT's]