Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-31T22:47:33.158Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Spillovers from Oil Firms to U.S. Computing and Semiconductor Manufacturing: Smudging State–Industry Distinctions and Retelling Conventional Narratives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2022

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Histories of semiconductor and computing technology in the United States have emphasized the supporting role of the U.S. state, especially the military, in answer to libertarian denials of state aid that are influential in Silicon Valley today. Somewhat implicit in that historiography, though, is the leading role of actors and organizations that blur any distinction between public and private. Some industries of this sort—telecommunications, aerospace, auto manufacturing—do figure in the historiography, but the class should be expanded further. One such industry—oil—has been exceptionally but almost invisibly influential in the development of computing and semiconductor manufacturing in the United States. Oil firms invested heavily in semiconductors and computing. There was also an “oil spillover” of personnel and technology from oil firms to computing and semiconductor manufacturing. Oil shows up in the biographies of many prominent individuals and organizations in the history of those technologies, from Fairchild Semiconductor to Edsger Dijkstra. These ties potentially hold important implications for the much-needed transition to a more sustainable energy regime.

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - SA
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of CambridgeUniversity Pressmust be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Business History Conference. All rights reserved.

One of the prominent and long-standing matters of public concern regarding the history of computing in the United States—alongside that of Silicon Valley and the “tech industry” more broadly—is the role of the state versus that of private enterprise. Popular histories such as Walter Isaacson’s Steve Jobs often present Silicon Valley as the creation of mavericks who needed little help from government.Footnote 1 Today’s Silicon Valley leaders, such as Marc Andreesen, Elon Musk, and Peter Thiel, similarly promote folk histories of high-tech as an arena of libertarian self-actualization that can only be hindered by the state.Footnote 2

In contrast, academic histories generally depict the state, especially the military, as the prime mover for early U.S. computing and semiconductor manufacturing.Footnote 3 Such studies (sometimes explicitly) counter libertarian narratives that denigrate the state.Footnote 4 Naturally, commercial enterprises still figure in academic histories of computing, even as they claim a role for the state that prominent actors deny. The most thoughtful studies acknowledge that the state–industry distinction is too binary, because many individuals who shaped semiconductor and computer technologies moved freely between roles in government and industry, and decisions with technological, commercial, and national security ramifications often emerged from networks that spanned state and industry.Footnote 5

Thus, the history of semiconductors and computing shows that even in the United States, there are industries in which it is difficult to distinguish commercial from state actors and commercial strategy coevolves with state policy. Such entangling of public and private is no surprise; I claim no originality in pointing it out.Footnote 6 In particular, many studies have documented the contributions that large, state-embedded conglomerates in the New York–Pennsylvania corridor (especially IBM, AT&T, RCA, General Electric, and Westinghouse) made to computing and semiconductors.Footnote 7 These companies ran government projects such as ballistic missile testing facilities; rotated senior staff into government commissions; operated under consent decrees from the Department of Justice; and cultivated close ties with both major political parties.Footnote 8 For such firms, any line between state and industry obscures rather than clarifies.

Other state-embedded industries also figure in histories of U.S. computing and semiconductors. The West Coast aerospace industry, for instance, formed the backbone of the “military–industrial complex” and appears prominently in histories of, for instance, user innovation in early computing and the invention of the integrated circuit.Footnote 9 So, too, the auto industry, which was a lucrative market that assisted semiconductor manufacturers in moving away from dependence on the military.Footnote 10 Car companies and their vendors—such as Motorola and Philco—also sponsored solid-state physics research that aided semiconductor manufacturers.Footnote 11 The coevolution of Silicon Valley, Detroit, and state policy (e.g., regulations regarding air pollution and energy conservation) made the car a “computer on wheels.”Footnote 12

Study Aims, Sources, Method, and Parameters

My aim is not to analyze the contributions to computing and semiconductors of state-embedded industries as a class. Instead, I focus on a single industry: oil. There should be little dispute that oil is a state-embedded industry: The U.S. government has fought wars partially motivated by desire for oil, has fomented revolutions to retain access to oil, has used oil as a diplomatic tool, and has sought to curb other nations’ use of that tool; and its “spymasters” have been “oilmen” and vice versa.Footnote 13 More fundamentally, the oil industry’s products suffuse Americans’ understanding of the state and its proper relationship to themselves, the environment, and the marketplace.Footnote 14

I will show that oil firms rode the state’s coattails and shaped public policy to gain access to advanced computing and semiconductor technologies. In that, the oil industry differs little from the aerospace, automobile, or telecommunications industries; I am not claiming that the oil industry’s contributions were more significant than those industries’ contributions. Still, laying out oil’s role in semiconductors and computing is warranted for at least two reasons. First, oil firms’ contributions are not nearly as well-known as those of the large, regulated monopolies in the northeastern United States, or even those of the auto and aerospace industries. Putting oil at the center of narratives about semiconductors and computing helps us better understand all three industries’ relationships to the state and the ubiquity of oil in U.S. society and especially U.S. technoscience. The semiconductor and computing industries were hardly unusual in enjoying oil patronage; fields including biotechnology, solar and nuclear power, and medicine have as well.Footnote 15 This study is part of a larger project documenting “oil spillovers” to various sciences and technologies. Obviously, “oil spillover” is a pun; however, I am serious in translating the concept of spillovers into business history from the social sciences.Footnote 16

Second, in tracing oil spillovers, this article exposes an underappreciated obstacle to technological solutions to climate change. I thereby add to the recent material and environmental turns in histories of semiconductors and computing.Footnote 17 That literature argues—contrary to popular understandings promoted by industry—that computing and semiconductor manufacturing are carbon-intensive and environmentally ruinous. This article further asserts that computing and semiconductor manufacturing just are, in part, arms of the fossil fuel industry, and Silicon Valley is an “energy capital” not unlike Dallas and Houston.Footnote 18 A better picture of the historical oil-computing nexus draws attention to tech firms’ present-day alliances with oil (and opposition to state action against climate change) and undermines optimism that information technologies will facilitate a future low-carbon transition.Footnote 19

Before moving to my empirical material, some notes on scope, periodization, and sources. By the “oil industry,” I mean oil producers, both large and small, as well as oil field services firms; I only include petrochemical manufacturers if they also owned substantial oil production or refining units. I focus on firms headquartered in the United States or Western Europe, during the Cold War period when those firms’ influence was at its peak. Links between oil and computing are hard to find before the Cold War, and somewhat submerged again after 1989 (though in my “Conclusion” I note some present-day connections between oil and Big Tech).

My argument is that oil firms participated in every major turn in the development of U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and computing during the Cold War. This is counterintuitive, because the oil “industry has a reputation for being slow to develop and adapt innovations”—a reputation confirmed by oil firms’ relatively small (“less than 1% of their net revenue”) investments in R&D.Footnote 20 Yet the oil industry is so large that small investments relative to its revenues can have enormous consequences for nascent firms and technologies. Moreover, the oil industry’s influence should not only be counted in dollars, but also in personnel, techniques, ideas, and institutions. To trace those strands of influence, I adopted the “follow the actors” research strategy associated with Bruno Latour and actor-network theory: I first identified networks that were clearly associated with either oil actors or the semiconductor and computing industries and then collected instances of overlap between the two networks.Footnote 21

I begin building my argument somewhat obliquely: first by offering a skeleton history of the U.S. semiconductor and computing industries, told in the conventional way without oil; after which I reinsert oil actors into that narrative. The conventional narrative that I offer does not encompass all work on the history of the U.S. computing and semiconductor industries, but it adequately summarizes surveys of that history such as Martin Campbell-Kelly and colleagues’ Computer, Paul Ceruzzi’s A History of Modern Computing, Alfred Chandler’s Inventing the Electronic Century, Thomas Haigh’s “The History of Information Technology,” and James Cortada’s “Progenitors of the Information Age.”Footnote 22 The same storyline also structures popular documentaries and fictionalizations.Footnote 23

The device of starting with the conventional narrative and then filling in its gaps is taken from Davis Baird and Ashley Shew’s study of participant histories of nanotechnology.Footnote 24 The point is to show where particular actors could fit in predominant narratives but have not done so thus far. Putting those actors into the storyline makes evident the work and assumptions required to maintain their invisibility. This approach is not dissimilar to studies that illuminate minoritized and subaltern groups’ contributions to computing.Footnote 25 Of course, the oil industry is hardly subaltern; bringing its contributions to light serves critique, not empowerment. Indeed, oil firms have themselves occluded their roles in semiconductors and computing. To counter critique and legal challenges, oil firms have been highly selective in making their strategies publicly transparent. Thus, I rely largely on published sources that present the oil industry’s own perspective—sources that I nevertheless read in ways oil actors did not intend.

The Established Narrative

I begin in 1947. There is, of course, an earlier history of computing, but I have not found exceptional oil industry involvement with calculating machines or human computing before the end of World War II. Such activity might turn up but would not alter my argument. There was, moreover, no semiconductor industry before 1947, as that year saw the invention of the transistor, the first solid-state semiconductor device to (eventually) be sold commercially. Virtually every popular and academic survey notes the invention of the transistor as a turning point, not just for what became the semiconductor industry, but also for computing and other U.S. high-tech industries, particularly in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The invention of the transistor, a solid-state amplifier and switch, was credited by their employer, Bell Laboratories, to William Shockley, John Bardeen, and Walter Brattain. A chemist, Gordon Teal, also contributed crucial crystal-growing knowledge.Footnote 26 Shockley then left Bell Labs in 1956 to form Shockley Semiconductor, a subsidiary of Beckman Instruments, in Palo Alto.Footnote 27 That venture gave rise to a more influential breakaway, Fairchild Semiconductor.Footnote 28 In 1958–1959, the integrated circuit was simultaneously invented at Fairchild and at Texas Instruments (TI), instigated by the military’s need for more reliable transistors.Footnote 29 Crucially, the transistors and other components in integrated circuits could be miniaturized, making electronic devices faster and less power-intensive; the steady shrinking of integrated circuitry since the early 1960s is now known as Moore’s law, after a Fairchild cofounder.Footnote 30 Miniaturization radically decreased the unit price of transistors; however, extreme miniaturization also required more expensive semiconductor manufacturing facilities (“fabs”). Over time, that expense became prohibitive; since the 1990s, firms have abandoned their fabs and outsourced manufacturing to “foundries,” particularly the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC).Footnote 31

Semiconductor manufacturing quickly diffused from Bell Labs after 1947. East Coast conglomerates such as RCA and IBM were early leaders, soon joined by firms like TI and Motorola in the Southwest and spin-offs from Fairchild in the Bay Area such as Signetics and Rheem.Footnote 32 These “Fairchildren” sprouted thanks to the venture capital (VC) industry in what became known as Silicon Valley. VC money also meant that region’s semiconductor firms were later joined by industrial clusters in biotech, personal computing, networking, dot-commerce, and social media.Footnote 33

By the early 1970s, miniaturization and integration of semiconductor components made a “computer on a chip,” or microprocessor, feasible—a device first marketed by one of the leading Fairchildren, Intel.Footnote 34 Combining many components on one chip in turn made smaller, “personal” computers commercially viable. Such machines had long been forecast, particularly in circles in which the counterculture and military–industrial complex intersected. One such circle connected the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), Portola Institute, and Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center, yielding (among other things) the Xerox Alto, a graphical user interface–based computer that influenced the Apple Macintosh, Microsoft Windows, and billions of similar devices used today.Footnote 35

Members of the same circles were also involved with the ARPANET and early networking technologies. In the 1980s, civilian networks proliferated alongside the ARPANET, such as the NSFNET connecting academic supercomputing centers.Footnote 36 The growth of such networks was aided by the dissolution of AT&T’s monopoly in 1984. This resulted in competition among telecommunications companies such as Sprint and Ericsson to lay fiber-optic cable and establish cellular networks.Footnote 37 These developments stimulated the privatization of the internet in 1995 and the dot-commerce boom.

Meanwhile, miniaturization of semiconductor components continued thanks to advances such as atomic layer deposition and FinFET transistors.Footnote 38 Putting those advances to use in laptops and cellphones, however, required parallel advances in power storage, particularly the lithium ion battery. By the twenty-first century, miniaturization made distributed storage fantastically cheap and processing fantastically fast. In the 2010s, these developments combined with progress in artificial intelligence (AI) research to place technologies such as self-driving cars and ubiquitous surveillance within reach.Footnote 39

Replaying in the Key of Oil

The sources cited in my summary of the established narrative contain barely a handful of passing references to oil. Almost the only survey that meaningfully acknowledges oil firms’ place in the history of computing is in the first volume of Cortada’s The Digital Hand, in a single chapter on the petrochemical industry.Footnote 40 Yet there are oil links to every single turn in the narrative presented above. That is not to say that oil conspiratorially lurked behind computing, nor that oil interests determined the events I have just sketched. Rather, I offer the more limited claim that oil actors participated in the U.S. semiconductor and computing industries far more than the conventional narrative acknowledges.

To some degree, that claim should not be surprising; oil was ubiquitous in American postwar society generally and in business in particular. A trivial example of that ubiquity comes from one of the earliest Fairchildren, Signetics, which had a former president of Standard Oil of California, Theodore Peterson, on its first board of directors.Footnote 41 Peterson only offered generic management expertise and did not steer Signetics in any oil-specific direction. Singly, such ties tell us little about oil or computing. Collectively, however, the links I describe were not trivial. The oil and semiconductor–computing industries formed a symbiotic relationship that gave them their present forms. To convey that symbiosis, I revisit the established narrative, this time highlighting oil actors’ presence. Then I will explain why oil firms took an interest in semiconductors and computing and what that means for the historiographies of all three industries.

Let us start, again, with the transistor. All the people I mentioned in connection with that invention were tied to oil. John Bardeen worked at Gulf Oil’s Pittsburgh research lab for several years before starting his PhD at Princeton.Footnote 42 While at Princeton, Bardeen became friends with another PhD student, Robert Brattain, who introduced Bardeen to his brother Walter (Bardeen’s future collaborator and Nobel co-laureate). Robert Brattain became one of Shell’s top scientists and developed a prototype of the IR-1 infrared spectrophotometer that Shell commissioned Arnold Beckman to produce commercially.Footnote 43 This stimulated the postwar “instrumental revolution,” reorienting chemistry to physical, and specifically electronic, instrumentation.Footnote 44 The money Beckman made from that revolution allowed him to hire William Shockley and form Shockley Semiconductor.Footnote 45

Another firm often said to have established the Silicon Valley business model, Varian Associates, also depended heavily on selling spectrometers to oil and petrochemical companies.Footnote 46 Yet another California firm founded to sell spectrometers for oil exploration, Consolidated Engineering Corporation, developed an early commercial computer, the CEC 30-103, before selling its computing unit to Burroughs. Renamed the Datatron 203, this became the basis for Burroughs’ successful entry into computing; ex-Shell employees were also responsible for Burroughs’ widely used version of Algol.Footnote 47 As David Brock has shown, the early history of semiconductor manufacturing, too, owed much to cooperation between oil firms and instrumentation companies, particularly in California.Footnote 48

Finally, the fourth transistor team member, Gordon Teal, left Bell Labs in 1953 to join TI. By that time, TI was largely focused on defense markets, but the company’s original incarnation, Geophysical Service Incorporated (GSI), was an oil field services firm. After the company was renamed in 1951, GSI continued until 1988 as its oil field services subsidiary. TI was the number one global semiconductor manufacturer of the 1970s and in the top four well into the 1990s; yet despite TI’s importance, semiconductor historians have written almost nothing about the decades-long coexistence of TI’s microelectronics and oil field services units.Footnote 49

Clearly, though, oil field services offered an important early market for TI’s microelectronics branch. For instance, in 1962 GSI rolled out the 15000-transistor Texas Instruments Automatic Computer (TIAC), intended primarily for seismic analysis and made possible by funding from Mobil and Texaco.Footnote 50 The TIAC later gave rise to “the TIAC 870, one of the first integrated-circuit computers,” and then in the early 1970s the Advanced Scientific Computer, developed with support from Chevron, Amoco, Texaco, Mobil, Phillips, and Unocal.Footnote 51

Knowledge, technology, and personnel also flowed from TI’s oil operations into microelectronics. One example is digital signal processing (DSP) and TI’s most famous consumer product, the Speak & Spell. Academic and participant histories of Speak & Spell do not draw a link to GSI, but plainly the oil industry was tremendously important in the development of the DSP chips that went into it.Footnote 52 Signal processing of seismic data was an early application of digital computers going back at least to MIT’s Whirlwind computer (one of the first real-time digital electronic computers). Historians of computing have depicted Whirlwind as a creature of the military.Footnote 53 However, students in MIT’s Geophysical Analysis Group were coopting Whirlwind for seismic analysis, with funding from oil firms Magnolia, Stanolind, and Atlantic Richfield, by 1952 (a few months after Whirlwind became operational).Footnote 54 Other oil companies, such as Shell, keenly followed the Whirlwind work.Footnote 55

The deconvolution methods developed on Whirlwind soon became standard in oil prospecting.Footnote 56 By the early 1970s, those techniques were good enough that some researchers leapt from processing seismic signals to processing (roughly similar) acoustic signals, that is, voice and music. One was John Burg, the son of Kenneth Burg, an early and influential employee of GSI. John Burg developed “the maximum entropy spectrum [as] an outgrowth of the deconvolution filtering technique long used in oil-exploration data processing” while he—following his father—was employed by TI in the early 1960s.Footnote 57 Burg later founded TSP (Time and Space Processing), where he applied the maximum entropy spectrum method to voice transmission over digital networks, primarily for military customers. Through Burg himself and colleagues in ARPANET circles, digital voice processing techniques then flowed back to the TI group that developed Speak & Spell.Footnote 58

TI’s microelectronics business was also aided by Texas elites’ desire to diversify the region’s economy to buffer periodic oil downturns. Indeed, Texas elites even backstopped risky gambles such as the Graduate Center of the Southwest, which TI established in 1961 to train future employees. When the Graduate Center began hemorrhaging money, the Texas state government (at the behest of oil and other business elites) took it off TI’s hands and transformed it into the University of Texas–Dallas.Footnote 59

A more frustrated case involved Jack Kilby, famous as coinventor of the integrated circuit. Less well-known is Kilby’s work in the 1970s on the TI Solar Energy System (TISES).Footnote 60 This was a residential system for generating heat and electricity, which Kilby and another former TI employee, Jay Lathrop, invented in response to the 1973 OAPEC oil embargo. In the late 1970s, TI and the Department of Energy jointly invested more than US$(2022)100 million in TISES.

In 1980, though, the price of oil started to drop, making the economics of TISES less favorable. At that point, TI and Kilby sought investors to help them start up and sustain manufacturing until economies of scale kicked in. They concluded that the only viable sources of that level of investment were oil companies and Saudi princes.Footnote 61 This was less counterintuitive than it seems now, because most major oil companies had solar energy programs at the time and the Saudi royal family splashily sponsored various solar power experiments.Footnote 62 Oil money was not forthcoming for TISES, however, and TI’s attempt to move from semiconductors into solar—inspired by the scarcity of, and with the hoped-for aid of, oil—was canceled in 1983.

Fairchildren and Angels

So far, I have shown that the oil industry multiply intersected with the invention of the transistor, diffusion of transistor manufacturing to Texas and Silicon Valley, and the invention of the integrated circuit. I have also shown that oil firms were crucial early consumers of discrete transistors (in instrumentation for petrochemical manufacturing and oil exploration) and of digital computers and integrated circuits (in digital analysis of seismic signals). The next turn in the conventional narrative, then, is the VC industry and Silicon Valley’s start-up culture. There, too, oil was everywhere.

An early example is Dean Knapic, a Shockley Semiconductor employee who carpooled with two of Fairchild Semiconductor’s future cofounders.Footnote 63 In 1957, Knapic also left Shockley to form a company to sell silicon to spec. Knapic’s seed money came from Norsworthy Industries, the investment vehicle of a Dallas oilman, Lamar Norsworthy Jr.Footnote 64 Despite the company’s rapid growth, Norsworthy withdrew after three years and Knapic folded, ceding the silicon market in part to companies with oil ties, particularly Monsanto. One of Knapic’s employees, Robert Lorenzini, later founded silicon suppliers Elmat and Siltec.Footnote 65 Another, Arthur del Prado, formed ASM International, today one of the world’s leading semiconductor process equipment suppliers.Footnote 66 Norsworthy’s investment thus stimulated the emergence and globalization of Silicon Valley start-up culture.

More broadly, oil firms and actors have been crucial players throughout the history of VC. Most histories credit Georges Doriot with founding the East Coast VC industry, and Eugene Kleiner and Arthur Rock the West Coast variant.Footnote 67 However, Martin Kenney and David Hsu have shown that Rockefeller Brothers was equally important in establishing the industry’s practices.Footnote 68 Rockefeller Brothers (Venrock after 1969), was a vehicle for the Rockefeller siblings to invest money inherited from their grandfather, John D. Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil. Among Venrock’s investments were Intel, Apple, and Mosaic. (Another major early investor in Intel was Gordon Moore’s financial adviser, Fayez Sarofim, who made his pre-Intel fortune investing for Houston’s oil barons.Footnote 69)

Doriot himself put money into oil companies, including George H. W. Bush’s Zapata Oil.Footnote 70 He also relied on advice from “his former student and family friend Arnaud de Vitry,” head of Mobil’s operations research unit.Footnote 71 In 1957, de Vitry counseled Doriot to make his most famous and successful investment in Digital Equipment Corporation. In the end, though, Doriot was outrun by VC firms that adopted the limited partnership legal template—which was invented by oil wildcatters to collectively share the risk (and profit) from drilling oil wells.Footnote 72 Only in 1959 was the limited partnership imported by “the first venture capital firm in Silicon Valley: Draper, Gaither & Anderson.”Footnote 73

As the VC industry matured, oil companies themselves joined in. The leader, founded in 1964, was Exxon Enterprises, which took stakes in (among others) nuclear power, solar energy, and even sporting equipment.Footnote 74 Its best-known investment was probably Zilog, one of the most promising semiconductor start-ups of the 1970s. Zilog was founded by Fairchild and Intel veterans, including Federico Faggin, coinventor of the microprocessor.Footnote 75 Alongside Zilog, Exxon bought into semiconductors (Supertex), superconductors (Intermagnetics General), word processing (Vydec, Xonex), optical scanning (Scantron), displays (Ramtek, Kylex, EPID), fax machines (Qwip), printers (Qume, Danbury Systems), typewriters (Qyx), digital voice storage and transmission (Delphi Communications), photodiodes (Emdex), semiconductor lasers (Optical Information Services), memory (Micro-Bit, Exxon STAR Systems), voice recognition and synthesis (Dialog [renamed Verbex Voice Systems], Periphonics), office telephony (Intecom), and disk drive heads (Magnex).Footnote 76

In the early 1980s, Exxon packaged these companies’ products into an office information suite built around a computer powered by a Zilog chip.Footnote 77 In 1984, it abandoned the effort, leaving the associated firms and personnel to seek their fortunes elsewhere. Some, such as James and Janet Baker of Verbex Voice, had more success post-Exxon: elements of their Dragon Naturally Speaking software are today embedded in Apple’s and Microsoft’s voice recognition packages.Footnote 78 In addition, Exxon Enterprises itself trained a few influential venture capitalists.Footnote 79

Where Exxon leads, other oil companies follow. BP, for instance, had both BP Ventures and a venture research unit that offered grants to, among others, the prominent computer scientist Edsger Dijkstra.Footnote 80 (It is probably a coincidence, though worth noting, that Dijkstra held the Schlumberger Centennial Chair in Computer Science at the University of Texas from 1980 to 1999; Schlumberger is an oil field services firm.) In 1979, Texaco founded Harrison Capital, while in 1980 Standard Oil of Ohio formed Vista Ventures (explicitly modeled on Exxon Enterprises).Footnote 81 Vista “invested about $20 million, primarily in computer companies, including Fortune Systems… [While] about 50% of Harrison’s investments [were] in computer companies, including Iomega … and Micro-Five.”Footnote 82 Atlantic Richfield’s ARCO Ventures was mostly focused on solar and biotech but also funded signal processing research at Stanford’s Ginzton Lab in the early 1980s.Footnote 83

Amoco Technology similarly mainly invested in solar but made bets in computing, including acquiring Stanford AI researcher Ed Feigenbaum’s company, Intelligenetics, in 1986.Footnote 84 Amoco Technology also bought 15 percent of chip manufacturer Analog Devices in 1977 and then formed a joint investment venture, Analog Devices Enterprises (ADE), in 1980.Footnote 85 ADE put money into computing-related companies such as Signal Processing Circuits, International Imaging Systems, Charles River Data Systems, Numerix, Photodyne, GigaBit Logic, Quantitative Technology Corp, TestSystems, Bipolar Integrated Technology, Imagerie Industrie Systeme, and Altera.Footnote 86

Spillovers Beyond Money

Oil firms’ contributions to computing and semiconductor manufacturing were not, however, limited to investment. Their in-house capabilities, too, spilled over to other industries. For instance, in the mid-1970s, Sun Oil established Sun Information Services (SIS) to handle its data processing.Footnote 87 SIS then attracted interest from external clients interested in data backup for disaster recovery. In 1983, Sun spun off SIS and four other computing subsidiaries (SunGard Services, Applied Financial Systems, Catallactics Corporation, and NMF Inc.) to form SunGard, one of the top data backup and disaster recovery firms until the 2010s.Footnote 88

Sometimes, capabilities developed for one purpose unexpectedly spilled into computing. For instance, Exxon’s formation of an Advanced Battery Division in the late 1970s was originally intended to help it get into “batteries to power electric vehicles.”Footnote 89 Yet, as Matthew Eisler documents, Exxon’s contributions to lithium ion batteries, along with parallel contributions by Atlantic Richfield and Schlumberger, instead made possible today’s mobile phones and portable computers.Footnote 90

In semiconductor manufacturing, oil firms’ materials expertise plugged directly in rather than spilling over. The chemicals used in semiconductor processing include various petrochemicals, especially photoresists used in lithography, sold by chemical suppliers such as Rohm & Haas and KMG Chemicals. Historically, chip-grade silicon was a specialty chemicals market too: as Monsanto’s president put it in 1983, “Monsanto is the world’s largest producer and marketer of polished silicon wafers. We have been an active member of the semiconductor industry for the past 24 years.”Footnote 91 Note that, from 1955 to 1975, Monsanto also operated an oil refinery and gas station chain.

Oil firms also offered challenging organizational environments where advances in computing could be refined. ARCO headquarters, for instance, was one of four locations where the Xerox Alto was field-tested in 1978 (alongside Xerox, the White House, and the U.S. House of Representatives).Footnote 92 Thus, firms involved in complex oil exploration and production projects have led development of advanced database systems, such as Stone & Webster’s Construction Management Display System and the Amoco Distributed Database System.Footnote 93

The physical environments across which oil firms operate also stimulated innovation. Oil companies were, for instance, among the first customers for GPS technology.Footnote 94 Likewise, the rancher and oilman Thomas Carter invented the Carterfone, an attachment for connecting a two-way radio to a telephone, for users working far from telephone lines. AT&T’s opposition to Carter, and the FCC’s landmark 1968 decision backing him, accelerated AT&T’s breakup and fostered “the motley world of funny receivers, slick switch boxes, and rickety answering machines. More importantly, [because of the Carterfone decision] consumers quickly embraced the modulate/demodulate device, otherwise known as the telephone modem.”Footnote 95

At times, the combination of oil’s geography and materiality plus oil firms’ complexity inspired developments in computing and especially networking. ARPANET’s topology, for instance, was partly derived from earlier studies of offshore oil and gas pipeline networks.Footnote 96 Much later, Amoco “led a group of 20 network companies and government agencies” as well as Chevron, Shell, and Schlumberger (and the American Petroleum Institute) in the ARIES project in the early 1990s. This was an influential pilot of asynchronous transfer mode network protocols for moving data from remote locations (such as oil platforms) to central facilities where the data could be interpreted.Footnote 97

A particularly convoluted example is the U.S. arm of Swedish telecommunications giant Ericsson. Despite benefiting greatly from AT&T’s breakup in 1984, Ericsson had virtually no presence in the United States before 1980, when it formed a joint venture, Anaconda-Ericsson, with Atlantic Richfield (a collaboration arising from the two companies’ Mexican subsidiaries).Footnote 98 Atlantic Richfield’s contribution was a subsidiary called Anaconda Telecommunications, a spin-off from Anaconda Wire and Cable. Wire and cable are critical material infrastructure for telecommunications, but also lucrative markets for copper companies such as the giant mining conglomerate, Anaconda Copper, which ARCO had taken over in 1977.Footnote 99

As the maze of subsidiaries in the Anaconda–Ericsson episode indicates, oil firms dabbled in many non-oil industries, particularly in the 1970s. Thus, the standard explanation for oil firms’ computing ventures is that they were “part of a diversification effort” (as Bo Lojek dismissively described Schlumberger’s 1979 purchase of Fairchild).Footnote 100 Yet just because a business appears (especially retrospectively) unrelated to oil production does not mean that an oil company invested in it solely to diversify its portfolio. And even where diversification strategies were at work, we have to ask why oil companies diversified in some directions and not others.

Schlumberger, for instance, bought Fairchild for specific reasons: “Schlumberger used computerized tools for measurement and oil research and, therefore, required increasing amounts of semiconductor components.”Footnote 101 Purchasing Fairchild also gave Schlumberger an umbrella under which to place related acquisitions such as Accutest, a semiconductor test equipment manufacturer.Footnote 102 Perhaps most importantly, Schlumberger stocked the Fairchild Advanced Research Laboratory with leading AI researchers from Stanford and SRI, including Peter Hart, Jay Martin Tenenbaum, Harry Barrow, and Richard Duda.Footnote 103 Several prominent Silicon Valley figures spent time at Schlumberger, including Reed Hastings (cofounder of Netflix) and Michael Kass (an Oscar-winning computer graphics developer at Pixar).Footnote 104

Moreover, other oil companies “diversified” into AI at exactly the same time. In the early 1980s, BP and Shell worked with Intelligent Terminals Limited, a start-up associated with prominent academic AI researchers Donald Michie and Jean Hayes-Michie, while Amoco bought an AI company founded by Stanford’s Ed Feigenbaum.Footnote 105 Others venturing into 1980s-vintage AI included Exxon, Elf Aquitaine, Saga Petroleum, Gulf, Chevron, and Phillips.Footnote 106 With respect to AI, then, “diversification” is an explanation that begs further explanation of why oil companies concentrated their investments in certain areas.

Even in cases in which diversification was less targeted, we should still note its consequences. Oil companies’ magnitude, combined with their diverse and often short-term pursuits, has allowed them to serve as stepping-stones for many figures in the history of semiconductors and computing, from John Bardeen to Reed Hastings. Not all were successful: the final president of RCA before its collapse was Thornton Bradshaw, formerly president of Atlantic Richfield.Footnote 107 Some we might wish had been less successful: Auto-Tuned pop music descends from geophysical algorithms developed by Andy Hildebrand at Exxon.Footnote 108 Some carried little trace of oil: Adam Osborne marketed “the first successful portable computer” and wrote “the documentation for the first microprocessor” after being fired from Shell.Footnote 109 Yet to understand the recruitment networks that brought people into semiconductors and computing, we need to acknowledge the oil industry’s role in training large numbers of technical personnel and instilling the dissatisfaction or entrepreneurialism needed to move to other pursuits.

The Wider Context

I invite readers now to reread my “Established Narrative” with an eye to the connections to oil that I have made visible in subsequent sections. So far, I have offered reasons why those connections existed, but I have not shown how oil and computing coevolved in some broader historical context. That is a topic for future research. Here I simply paint in broad strokes the major trends that brought oil and computing together.

The main reason for oil-computing spillovers is that the semiconductor industry and the digital electronic programmable computer came into being exactly as oil extraction was becoming much more technologically intensive. From the 1950s onward, new sources of oil could only be found in increasingly difficult political and physical environments: the North Sea, Gulf of Mexico, North Slope of Alaska, Arabian Peninsula, and so on.Footnote 110 Thus, oil companies grabbed technological advantages to overcome competitors, rentier states, and a recalcitrant Earth. Computing aided everything from designing offshore oil rigs to analyzing seismic data to predicting future prices to automating refineries. Before long, the oil industry existentially depended upon digital technologies to maintain profits and continue expanding operations. Drilling in the North Sea, for instance, could not have extended into deep offshore waters if not for advances in software for controlling pipeline flows.Footnote 111

Oil companies also used computing to obtain political advantage. In particular, from the late 1960s onward, the largest producers headquartered in Western Europe and the United States faced growing demands from “petrostates” in the Global South for a greater share of revenues.Footnote 112 Thus, where the majors earlier dismissed talk of scarcity or “peak oil,” by the late 1960s, a few oil actors were sponsoring and publicizing forecasts that oil would become precipitously more expensive and harder to access.Footnote 113 Computer modeling helped legitimate forecasting as a modern and objective practice. Oil firms had already adopted computer models for internal use: “The Sun Oil Corporate Financial Model developed … between 1965 and 1968 was the first large-scale model ever built; it was also an abject failure which was completely abandoned in 1969.”Footnote 114 Sun’s model was superseded by the Industrial Dynamics model developed by Whirlwind inventor Jay Forrester, which led the Club of Rome to commission Forrester to model global resource scarcity; several Club members (Frits Böttcher, Maurice Strong, Joseph Slater) were current or former oil or gas executives, as were close allies of the Club such as George Mitchell and Robert Anderson. The resulting World3 model underlay the Club’s bestselling 1972 Limits to Growth report, which spurred a global debate about scarcity to which oil firms were very much interested parties.Footnote 115 Oil companies also developed alternatives to Industrial Dynamics, such as scenario planning and long-range planning, that were not necessarily computing intensive.Footnote 116 Shell’s scenario planning approach, in particular, proved immensely popular among Silicon Valley techno-optimists who were skeptical of Limits to Growth. Footnote 117

In the short-term, though, Limits’ claims were bolstered by the 1973 OAPEC oil embargo.Footnote 118 The oil shock led to windfall profits for oil companies. It also inspired innovation in energy conservation, such as computerized “smart grids” and the battery and electric vehicle research mentioned earlier.Footnote 119 Many of the direct oil investments in computing that I have outlined occurred in this period from the late 1960s to the mid-1980s. Oil firms needed to park their windfall profits somewhere, and computer and semiconductor technologies offered good returns on investment. The same technologies also looked like promising aids in the search for oil and other fossil fuels.

Then the price of oil started to decline in 1980, reaching pre-1973 levels by 1986. That left oil firms starved of the cash they earlier put into computing.Footnote 120 Legislative and financial changes also shifted power to activist investors who demanded short-term returns and an end to long-term investment in technologies not immediately related to oil production.Footnote 121 Oil companies were still active in computing after 1986, but in more focused, less visible ways than before. Thus, U.S. oil firms were not visible contributors to the dot-com and social media booms, even if those booms built on technologies and institutions in which oil firms formerly invested. In recent years, however, Big Tech companies—particularly Google and Microsoft—have quietly provided crucial aid in extending the life of the fossil-fuel industry.Footnote 122 In return, oil money—particularly from Saudi Arabia—has underwritten the emergence of new computing-based industries such as rideshare platforms.Footnote 123 The story of oil and computing is by no means over.

Conclusion

Does recognizing the oil–computing nexus have significance beyond the proverbial gap in the historiography? I offer three affirmative answers. First, oil spillovers help explain why U.S. firms took an early lead in the computing and semiconductor manufacturing industries. The usual reason given for that lead is that the U.S. state, especially the military, provided a much larger market than other nation-states could sustain. That explanation is valid, but the American semiconductor and computing industries were also aided by the peculiar nature of the American oil industry. Thanks to the breakup of Standard Oil and the peculiarities of American capitalism, the U.S. oil industry was much more fragmented than that of any other country—which in turn meant many more sources of transfers from oil to semiconductors and computing.Footnote 124

Other countries have oil companies, of course, and those firms were as involved in computing as their American counterparts. To give just a few examples: Norsk Hydro and Statoil were major funders of Norway’s leading academic computing facility of the 1980s, and Hydro collaborated with Matra and SGS on a supercomputer project.Footnote 125 The Finnish national oil company, Neste Oy, was the leading sponsor of atomic layer deposition (ALD) development; ALD is today a key technique in semiconductor manufacturing.Footnote 126 Sino-American Petroleum was one of the founding investors in TSMC.Footnote 127 In the early 1980s, BP partly owned Mercury Communications and wholly owned Telcom General, the latter headquartered in Silicon Valley.Footnote 128 No country, though, has as diverse an oil and gas industry as the United States. Oil companies all across the spectrum—from tiny Norsworthy Industries to giant Exxon—have allied with semiconductor and computing firms. That would not have been possible if the United States had a national oil company similar to other countries. How much that has mattered to the development of the American and global semiconductor and computer industry is beyond my scope but worth further research.

Second, we need to grapple with the complexities of oil firms’ sponsorship of technological development beyond oil. In recent years, scholars such as Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway have exposed the oil industry’s agnotological role: that is, its promotion of ignorance rather than knowledge, particularly regarding climate change.Footnote 129 In contrast, this article surveys oil firms’ patronage of knowledge-intensive technological activities. Obviously, oil firms’ climate denialism is in no way mitigated by their contributions to computing and semiconductor manufacturing. The world must reduce fossil fuel emissions, and thus oil companies must become smaller and less influential. Yet this article indicates that that transition could leave holes in the U.S.—and global—innovation system. Important R&D institutions, seemingly unrelated to oil, in fact depend on flows of money, technology, and personnel to and from the oil industry. For instance, one of the most prominent universities in histories of computing, Carnegie Mellon, is named after the family (Mellon) behind Gulf Oil. Many other U.S. universities with long histories in computing and semiconductors—Caltech, Stanford, Rice, University of Texas, MIT—have buildings and professorships endowed with oil money.

Any energy transition that relies on innovations from such institutions will require that the oil industry’s current influence be counterbalanced and then replaced. The distorting effect of oil money on academic research is already clear.Footnote 130 But we also need to acknowledge that some of the academic research that oil money funds—notably in semiconductors and computing—is robust and beneficial to many and that universities long starved of funding have therefore long sought oil patronage. Plans for an energy transition need to include ways to make up for the loss of oil money that flows into universities and other research organizations.

Finally, tracing the longevity of oil firms’ involvement with computing and in Silicon Valley helps make sense of the present. Historians of computing and Silicon Valley have done this before, in confronting the sexism and racism of “brogrammer” culture at companies like Google, advocating for a unionized tech workforce, and highlighting tech firms’ cooperation with the national security state.Footnote 131 Silicon Valley firms’ ongoing collaborations with oil companies have sparked debate recently, but that debate so far lacks historical grounding.Footnote 132 This article presents the long historical context for Google’s and other tech companies’ assistance in extending the carbon economy. And where there is history there are alternatives: things were different in the past, the present was arrived at contingently, things can be otherwise in the future. For the future to be different, however, we must understand that the wheels of e-commerce have long been lubricated with a thick, if strangely invisible, layer of oil.

Acknowledgment

The research for this article was supported by the Dutch Research Council (NWO) Vici grant VI.C.191.067 "Managing Scarcity and Sustainability" and the European Research Council Synergy grant NANOBUBBLES, project 951393. The author thanks members of the Managing Scarcity and Nanobubbles teams as well as David Brock and Martin Schmitt.

Footnotes

1. Isaacson, Steve Jobs.

2. Cohen, The Know-It-Alls.

3. Riordan and Hoddeson, Crystal Fire; Edwards, The Closed World; Lécuyer, Making Silicon Valley; Abbate, Inventing the Internet.

4. Mazzucato, The Entrepreneurial State; Heinrich, “Cold War Armory.”

5. O’Mara, Cities of Knowledge; O’Mara, The Code.

6. Block and Keller, State of Innovation.

7. Bassett, To the Digital Age; Gertner, The Idea Factory; Cortada, IBM; Choi, “Manufacturing Knowledge in Transit.”

8. Usselman, “Fostering a Capacity for Compromise;” Hirshberg, “Targeting Kwajalein”; Hart, “IBM in American Politics;” Russell, Open Standards.

9. Akera, Calculating a Natural World; Lécuyer, Making Silicon Valley.

10. Lécuyer, “Silicon for Industry.”

11. Hoddeson and Garrett, The Man Who Saw Tomorrow; Johnson, “How Ford Invented the SQUID.”

12. Johnson, Environmental Regulation and Technological Development.

13. As documented both in oil-friendly histories such as Yergin, The Prize, and in critical studies such as Mitchell, Carbon Democracy.

14. Huber, Lifeblood; LeMenager, Living Oil.

15. For a medical example, see Parker, “Controlling Man-Made Malaria.” On solar, Jones and Bouamane, “‘Power from Sunshine’”; on biotech, Mody, “Complementary Scarcities”; on nuclear, Cohen, “Firm Heterogeneity, Investment, and Industry Expansion.”

16. Griliches, “Issues in Assessing;” Meyer and Whittier, “Social Movement Spillover;” Feldman, “The New Economics of Innovation.”

17. Ensmenger, “The Environmental History of Computing;” Lécuyer and Brock, “The Materiality of Microelectronics.”

18. Pratt, Melosi, and Brosnan, Energy Capitals.

19. Pasek, “Seeing Carbon Through Silicon.”

20. Perrons, “How Innovation and R&D Happen in the Upstream Oil and Gas Industry,” 301, 302.

21. Latour, Reassembling the Social.

22. Campbell-Kelly et al., Computer; Ceruzzi, A History of Modern Computing; Chandler, Inventing the Electronic Century; Haigh, “The History of Information Technology”; Cortada, “Progenitors of the Information Age.”

23. E.g., Kikim Media’s 2018 documentary, Silicon Valley The Untold Story, or AMC Studios’ fictional series (running 2014–2017), Halt and Catch Fire. The oil industry figures prominently in the latter’s second season.

24. Baird and Shew, “Probing the History.”

25. E.g., Rankin, A People’s History of Computing; Petrick, Making Computers Accessible; Abbate, Recoding Gender; Gaboury, “A Queer History of Computing;”

26. Lécuyer and Brock, “The Materiality of Microelectronics.”

27. Shurkin, Broken Genius, chap. 9; Riordan and Hoddeson, Crystal Fire, chap. 11; Brock, “From Automation to Silicon Valley.”

28. Riordan and Hoddeson, Crystal Fire, chap. 11; Lécuyer, Making Silicon Valley, chap. 4.

29. Ibid.; Seitz and Einspruch, Electronic Genie; Choi, “Manufacturing Knowledge in Transit.”

30. Brock, Understanding Moore’s Law.

31. Sarma and Sun, “The Genesis of Fabless Business Model.”

32. Choi, “Manufacturing Knowledge in Transit”; Cortada, IBM; Klepper, “The Origin and Growth of Industry Clusters.”

33. Kenney, Understanding Silicon Valley.

34. Bassett, To the Digital Age; Zygmont, Microchip; Reid, The Chip.

35. Bardini, Bootstrapping; Markoff, What the Dormouse Said; Fong, “ARPA Does Windows.”

36. Abbate, Inventing the Internet; Gallo, “Speaking of Science.”

37. Morgan, “Digital Highways.”

38. Van Duijn, “Fortunes of High-Tech,” chapter titled “Innovation IV”; O’Reagan and Fleming, “The FinFET Breakthrough.”

39. Jones, “How We Became Instrumentalists (Again)”; Stilgoe, “Machine Learning, Social Learning.”

40. Cortada, The Digital Hand, vol. 1, chap. 6.

41. Lionel E. Kattner, “Signetics History,” undated but before 2008, lot no. X7847.2017, Information Technology Corporate Histories Collection, Computer History Museum.

42. Hoddeson and Daitch, True Genius, chap. 3.

43. Morris, A Cultural History of Chemistry in the Modern Age.

44. Ibid.

45. Thackray and Myers, Arnold O. Beckman.

46. Morris, A Cultural History of Chemistry in the Modern Age.

47. Kimpel, “The Origins of Burroughs Extended Algol.”

48. Brock, “Oil Exploration, Automation, and Bits.”

49. Riordan and Hoddeson, Crystal Fire, Reid, The Chip, and Zygmont, Microchip, barely mention oil in a lengthy discussion of TI. Even the company’s 75th anniversary coffee table book only briefly puts oil and electronics in the same frame and ignores oil after page 20! Pirtle, Engineering the World.

50. Pirtle, Engineering the World, 16.

51. Pirtle, Engineering the World, 17–18.

52. Frantz, The Speak N Spell; Marshall, “The Oleaginous Voice.”

53. Akera, Calculating a Natural World, chap. 5; Redmond and Smith, From Whirlwind to MITRE; Edwards, The Closed World, chap. 3.

54. Robinson oral history; Shrock, Geology at MIT, chap. 23; Bates, Gaskell, and Rice, Geophysics in the Affairs of Man, 112.

55. For a 1957 report to Shell headquarters on the Whirlwind research, see Edward Crisp Bullard. “The Work of the Geophysical Analysis Group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology” (July 1957), folder E218, Papers and Correspondence of Sir Edward Crisp Bullard, 1907–1980, Churchill Archives Center.

56. Priest, “Seismic Innovations.”

57. Barnard, “The Maximum Entropy Spectrum and the Burg Technique,” I-1.

58. Gray, Linear Predictive Coding.

59. Leslie and Kargon, “Selling Silicon Valley;” Busch, “An Abstract Thing.’”

60. Mody, “After the IC.”

61. “Texas Instruments Takes a Partner,” undated (probably 1977), box 2, record group 4, Texas Instruments Records, A2005.0025; Pete Johnson, “OPC review, Project Illinois” (May 17, 1982), folder 4, Solar Energy Reviews 1978–1982, box 68, Jack Kilby papers A2006.0023 Series 1: Manuscripts; both in DeGolyer Library Special Collections.

62. Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia. “SunDay A Special Day… A Special Relationship” [paid advertisement]. New York Times, May 3, 1978, A26.

63. Thackray, Brock, and Jones, Moore’s Law, 147, 153. Knapic appears in a pejorative light in Lojek, History of Semiconductor Engineering, 91–92, and in a footnote in Berlin, “Robert Noyce and Fairchild Semiconductor.”

64. Van Duijn, Fortunes of High-Tech, chap. 2. Worden & Risberg, Evaluation Silicon Monocrystal Market, report on Knapic Electro-Physics to Norsworthy Industries, 1959, from Arthur del Prado papers, courtesy Jorijn van Duijn. Lorenzini, oral history.

65. Marsh, “Crystal History.”

66. Van Duijn, “Fortunes of High-Tech,” argues del Prado would not have started ASM International (and named his first son Charles Dean del Prado after Knapic) without his experience at Knapic. One of ASM International’s spin-offs, ASML, is also a leading semiconductor equipment manufacturer today: Raaijmakers, De Architecten van ASML.

67. Ante, Creative Capital

68. Kenney, “How Venture Capital.” See also Hsu and Kenney, “Organizing Venture Capital.”

69. Thackray, Brock, and Jones, Moore’s Law.

70. Ante, Creative Capital, 163–165.

71. Ante, Creative Capital, 150.

72. Mark Williams Pontin, “Founding Father,” MIT Technology Review, July/August 2008. Hsu and Kenney, “Organizing Venture Capital.”

73. Berlin, “The First Venture Capital Firm in Silicon Valley,” 155, cites the Rockefellers rather than unnamed wildcatters as inspiration for applying the limited partnership to venture capital. Either way, oil exploration was the original model.

74. Exxon Enterprises, “Exhibit Highlights: 1977 International Electric Vehicle Exposition”; Solar Thermal Systems, “Solar Myths, Solar Truths,” undated pamphlet, probably ~1980; Charles E. Petty, “Automating the Office,” pamphlet reprinted from Fall, 1981 issue of The Lamp; all from folder 2.207/H19B, Exxon Enterprises, 1977–1981, ExxonMobil Historical Collection, Briscoe Center for American History.

75. Elaine Williams, “Challenge to Minicomputers,” Financial Times, September 15, 1982.

76. John Greitzer, “Executive Changes at Zilog Head off Management Rift,” Computer Business News, 2, no. 4 (January 22, 1979): 2; “Amdahl Enters Micro-Bit Effort,” Computerworld, 11, no. 4 (January 24, 1977): 42; “STC to Buy Exxon Division,” Computerworld, 15, no. 24 (June 15, 1981): 96; Brad Schultz, “Exxon in DP Market: Why?,” Computerworld, 14, no. 20 (May 19, 1980): 109ff; Stacy Moran, “Public Spotlight: Supertex, Inc.,” Electronic Business, 10, no. 6 (March 1984): 208.

77. Byrne, “When Exxon Wanted to Be the Next Apple”; Anthony J. Parisi, “Exxon Offers Laser Devices,” New York Times, January 24, 1979, D1.

78. Simson Garfinkel, “Enter the Dragon,” MIT Technology Review, September 1, 1998.

79. Ron Leuty, “VC Takes Innovation Message to Beltway,” San Francisco Business Times, July 27, 2010.

80. Donald Braben, “BP Backs Revolutionary Research,” New Scientist, April 21, 1983, 142–145. Dijkstra—sans oil—features in, among others, Ensmenger, The Computer Boys Take Over, chap. 5; Payette, “Hopper and Dijkstra.”

81. Kathleen K. Wiegner, “Signs of Life,” Forbes, June 7, 1982, 154.

82. Ibid.

83. Siegman, “Annual Progress Report.”

84. Feigenbaum, like Dijstra, is well-known to historians of computing; Grier, “Interviews: Edward Feigenbaum.” Amoco’s investment in Feigenbaum’s company is not, however. Amoco’s 60 percent ownership of Intelligenetics is from Tom Kehler, “Facsimile from Tom Kehler to Qunio Takashima [cc’ed to Feigenbaum],” October 6, 1989, box 2, folder 22, SC0340, Accession 2005-101, Edward A. Feigenbaum Papers, Special Collections, Stanford University Libraries.

85. Theresa Engstrom, “Analog Devices Converts Ambition into Dollars,” Electronic Business, 11, no. 10 (May 15, 1985): 73ff.

86. Ibid. “Analog Devices Buys $1 Million of Photodyne Stock,” Lasers & Applications, 1, no. 1 (September 1982): 28; Peter Dunn, “TestSystems: Failure in the Final Test,” Electronic News, 34, no. 1690 (January 25, 1988): 36; “Analog Devices,” PR Newswire, July 25, 1984; “Altera-Corp; Closes Third-Round Financing,” Business Wire, March 26, 1985.

87. Russ Banham, “Welcome to Hell,” Treasury & Risk Management, 9, no. 6 (August 1999): 61–63.

88. Peter Key, “SunGard Buy Gets Analysts’ Praise,” Philadelphia Business Journal, December 10, 2001.

89. “Exxon’s Effort to Find Investment Outlets,” Business Week, April 24, 1978, 78–79. Also, Exxon Enterprises, “Exhibit Highlights: 1977 International Electric Vehicle Exposition,” folder 2.207/H19B, Exxon Enterprises, 1977–1981, ExxonMobil Historical Collection, Briscoe Center for American History.

90. Eisler, “Exploding the Black Box.”

91. Quote is from “Monsanto Company,” PR Newswire, May 11, 1983. For Monsanto’s oil and electronics units, see “The Reworking of Monsanto,” Chemical Week, January 12, 1983, 42.

92. High Tech History, “A Brief, Early History of Xerox PARC”; Computer History Museum, “Computer History Museum Add Historic Xerox Alto.”

93. Coles and Reinschmidt, “Computer-integrated Construction”; Thomas et al., “Heterogeneous Distributed Database Systems.”

94. Trimble, oral history.

95. Sterling, Bernt, and Weiss, Shaping American Telecommunications,125. Russell, Open Standards, 141–142, 159, puts Carterfone in the context of the breakdown of AT&T’s monopoly and the creation of alternative standards for networked communications. Quote is from Matthew Lasar, “Any Lawful Device: Revisiting Carterfone on the Eve of the Net Neutrality Vote,” Ars Technica, December 13, 2017.

96. Frank interview. Thanks to Martin Schmitt for alerting me to this source.

97. Lori Valigra, “Amoco Leads ATM Trial to Aid Global Oil Exploration,” Infoworld, June 12, 1995, 50.

98. “LM Ericsson Acquires Full Interest in Ericsson, Inc. in Pact with Atlantic Richfield,” Fiber Optics & Communications Newsletter, December 1985, 5.

99. Leech, The City That Ate Itself, 311–315, 335–340.

100. Lojek, History of Semiconductor Engineering, 171.

101. Malerba, The Semiconductor Business, 169.

102. Schlumberger Limited, Schlumberger Annual Report 1982.

103. Nils J. Nilsson, “Introduction to the COMTEX Microfiche Edition of the SRI Artificial Intelligence Center Technical Notes,” AI Magazine, 5, no. 1 (1984): 41–52. Hart was formerly director of the SRI AI center, one of the primary nodes of AI research in the world. Nilsson describes the group that left for Schlumberger as a majority of “the people who had seen us [the center] through the tumultuous ’70s.”

104. Grinapol, Reed Hastings and Netflix; Farmer, “A Talk with 2017 ACM Fellow, Michael Kass.”

105. Intelligent Terminals, corporate overview and FAQ, Turing: The Papers of Alan Mathison Turing, GBR/0272/AMT/A/43, Archive Center, King’s College.

106. J. Scot Finnie, “Sudden Shower Enriches MIS Turf,” Computerworld, October 17, 1988, 77; Kenneth Brooks, “AI Tackles Real-Time Process Control,” Chemical Week, September 10, 1986, 38; Braunschweig, “Artificial Intelligence in the Petroleum World.”

107. Marilyn Berger, “Thornton F. Bradshaw Dies at 71: Led RCA until Purchase by GE,” New York Times, December 7, 1988, D24.

108. Marshall, “Tuning in Situ,” 55ff.

109. Jack Schofield, “Adam Osborne,” The Guardian, March 27, 2003.

110. Priest, “The Dilemmas of Oil Empire”; Priest, The Offshore Imperative; Veldman and Lagers, 50 Years Offshore; Coates, The Trans-Alaska Pipeline.

111. Nygaard, “Controlling the Flow of Oil and Gas Subsea.”

112. Garavini, The Rise and Fall of OPEC.

113. Priest, “Hubbert’s Peak.”

114. Clarke and Tobias, “Complexity in Corporate Modeling,” 20.

115. Baker, “World Processors.”

116. Fosbrook, “How Scenarios Became Corporate Strategies.”

117. Turner, From Counterculture to Cyberculture.

118. Bini, Garavini, and Romero, Oil Shock.

119. Slayton, “Efficient, Secure, Green.”

120. Basosi, Garavini, and Trentin, Counter-Shock.

121. Holmstrom and Kaplan, “Corporate Governance and Merger Activity.”

122. Cool, “Oil Is the New Data.”

123. Mike Isaac and Michael J. de la Merced, “Uber Turns to Saudi Arabia for $3.5 Billion Cash Infusion,” New York Times, June 1, 2016.

124. Maugeri, The Age of Oil.

125. “Europe’s Eureka Plan Remains to Be Shaped,” New York Times, July 22, 1985; Costello, “Norway.”

126. Van Duijn, “Fortunes of High-Tech,” chap. 28.

127. Meaney, “State Policy and the Development of Taiwan’s Semiconductor Industry.”

128. Walter L. Morgan, “Unisat,” Satellite Communications, April 1983, 44; “BP Buys 80% of Telcom General,” Satellite News, 8, no. 26 (July 1, 1985): 7, https://archive.org/details/sim_satellite-news_1985-07-01_8_26/mode/2up.

129. Oreskes and Conway, Merchants of Doubt; Proctor and Schiebinger, Agnotology.

130. Ben Franta and Geoffrey Supran, “The Fossil Fuel Industry’s Invisible Colonization of Academia,” The Guardian, March 13, 2017; Jelmer Mommers, “Als de fossiele industrie de onderzoeksagenda op je universiteit bepaalt,” De Correspondent, May 16, 2017.

131. M. Hicks, “Why Tech’s Gender Problem Is Nothing New,” The Guardian, October 12, 2018; Margaret O’Mara, Jessia Ma, and Ash Ngu, “Lyft’s IPO Is Making the Same Circle of Men Rich, Again,” New York Times, March 29, 2019; Margaret O’Mara, “Silicon Valley Can’t Escape the Business of War,” New York Times, October 29, 2018, A19.

132. Merchant, “How Google, Microsoft, and Big Tech Are Automating the Climate Crisis.”

References

Bibliography of Works Cited

Abbate, Janet. Inventing the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Abbate, Janet. Recoding Gender: Women’s Changing Participation in Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Akera, Atsushi. Calculating a Natural World: Scientists, Engineers, and Computers During the Rise of U.S. Cold War Research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Ante, Spencer E. Creative Capital: Georges Doriot and the Birth of Venture Capital. Boston: Harvard Business Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Bardini, Thierry. Bootstrapping: Douglas Engelbart, Coevolution, and the Origins of Personal Computing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Basosi, Duccio, Garavini, Giuliano, and Trentin, Massimiliano, eds. Counter-Shock: The Oil Counter-Revolution of the 1980s. London: Tauris, 2018.Google Scholar
Bassett, Ross Knox. To the Digital Age: Research Labs, Start-up Companies, and the Rise of MOS Technology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Bates, Charles C., Gaskell, Thomas F., and Rice, Robert B.. Geophysics in the Affairs of Man. Oxford: Pergamon, 1982.Google Scholar
Bini, Elisabetta, Garavini, Giuliano, and Romero, Federico, eds. Oil Shock: The 1973 Crisis and Its Economic Legacy. London: Tauris, 2016.Google Scholar
Block, Fred L., and Keller, Matthew R., eds. State of Innovation: The U.S. Government’s Role in Technology Development. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2011.Google Scholar
Brock, David C., ed. Understanding Moore’s Law: Four Decades of Innovation. Philadelphia: Chemical Heritage Foundation, 2006.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kelly, Martin, Aspray, William, Ensmenger, Nathan, and Yost, Jeffrey R., Computer: A History of the Information Machine. New York: Routledge, 2018.Google Scholar
Ceruzzi, Paul E. A History of Modern Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Chandler, Alfred D. Jr. Inventing the Electronic Century: The Epic Story of the Consumer Electronics and Computer Industries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Coates, Peter A. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Controversy: Technology, Conservation, and the Frontier. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Cohen, Noam. The Know-It-Alls: The Rise of Silicon Valley as a Political Powerhouse and Social Wrecking Ball. New York: New Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Cortada, James W. The Digital Hand: How Computers Changed the Work of American Manufacturing, Transportation, and Retail Industries. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Cortada, James W. IBM: The Rise and Fall and Reinvention of a Global Icon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2019.Google Scholar
Edwards, Paul. The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Ensmenger, Nathan. The Computer Boys Take Over: Computers, Programmers, and the Politics of Technical Expertise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Frantz, Gene. The Speak N Spell. Houston: Rice University OpenStax CNX, 2014.Google Scholar
Garavini, Giuliano. The Rise and Fall of OPEC in the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.Google Scholar
Gertner, Jon. The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation. New York: Penguin, 2012.Google Scholar
Gray, Robert M. Linear Predictive Coding and the Internet Protocol. Boston: Now Publishers, 2010.Google Scholar
Grinapol, Corinne. Reed Hastings and Netflix. New York: Rosen Publishing, 2014.Google Scholar
Hoddeson, Lillian, and Daitch, Vicki. True Genius: The Life and Science of John Bardeen, the Only Winner of Two Nobel Prizes in Physics. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Hoddeson, Lillian, and Garrett, Peter. The Man Who Saw Tomorrow: The Life and Inventions of Stanford R. Ovshinsky. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2018.Google Scholar
Huber, Matthew. Lifeblood: Oil, Freedom, and the Forces of Capital. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaacson, Walter. Steve Jobs. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011.Google Scholar
Kenney, Martin, ed., Understanding Silicon Valley: The Anatomy of an Entrepreneurial Region. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Lécuyer, Christophe. Making Silicon Valley: Innovation and the Growth of High-Tech, 1930–1970. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Leech, Brian. The City That Ate Itself: Butte, Montana and Its Expanding Berkeley Pit. Reno: University of Nevada Press, 2018.Google Scholar
LeMenager, Stephanie. Living Oil: Petroleum Culture in the American Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lojek, Bo. History of Semiconductor Engineering. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2007.Google Scholar
Malerba, Franco. The Semiconductor Business: The Economics of Rapid Growth and Decline. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Markoff, John. What the Dormouse Said: How the 60s Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry. London: Penguin, 2005.Google Scholar
Maugeri, Leonardo. The Age of Oil: The Mythology, History, and Future of the World’s Most Controversial Resource. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2006.Google Scholar
Mazzucatto, Mariana. The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. London: Anthem, 2013.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Timothy. Carbon Democracy: Political Power in the Age of Oil. London: Verso, 2011.Google Scholar
Morris, Peter J. T., ed. A Cultural History of Chemistry in the Modern Age. London: Bloomsbury, 2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Mara, Margaret. The Code: Silicon Valley and the Remaking of America. London: Penguin, 2019.Google Scholar
O’Mara, Margaret Pugh. Cities of Knowledge: Cold War Science and the Search for the Next Silicon Valley. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi, and Conway, Erik M.. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury, 2010.Google Scholar
Petrick, Elizabeth R. Making Computers Accessible: Disability Rights and Digital Technology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
Pirtle, Caleb III. Engineering the World: Stories from the First 75 Years of Texas Instruments. University Park, TX: Southern Methodist University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Pratt, Joseph A., Melosi, Martin V., and Brosnan, Kathleen A., eds. Energy Capitals: Local Impact, Global Influence. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2014.Google Scholar
Priest, Tyler. The Offshore Imperative: Shell Oil’s Search for Petroleum in Postwar America. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Proctor, Robert N., and Schiebinger, Londa, eds. Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Raaijmakers, René. De Architecten van ASML. Nijmegen, Netherlands: Techwatch Books, 2017.Google Scholar
Rankin, Joy Lisi. A People’s History of Computing in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018.Google Scholar
Redmond, Kent C., and Smith, Thomas M.. From Whirlwind to MITRE: The R&D Story of the SAGE Air Defense Computer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Reid, T. R. The Chip: How Two Americans Invented the Microchip and Launched a Revolution. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985.Google Scholar
Riordan, Michael, and Hoddeson, Lillian. Crystal Fire: The Invention of the Transistor and the Birth of the Information Age. New York: Norton, 1997.Google Scholar
Russell, Andrew. Open Standards and the Digital Age: History, Ideology, and Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seitz, Frederick, and Einspruch, Norman. Electronic Genie: The Tangled History of Silicon. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Shrock, Robert Rakes. Geology at MIT, 1865–1965 . Vol. 2, Department Operations and Products. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Shurkin, Joel N. Broken Genius: The Rise and Fall of William Shockley, Creator of the Electronic Age. London: Macmillan, 2006.Google Scholar
Sterling, Christopher H., Bernt, Phyllis W., and Martin, B. H. Weiss. Shaping American Telecommunications: A History of Technology, Policy, and Economics. New York: Routledge, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thackray, Arnold, Brock, David C., and Jones, Rachel. Moore’s Law: The Life of Gordon Moore, Silicon Valley’s Quiet Revolutionary. New York: Basic Books, 2015.Google Scholar
Thackray, Arnold, and Myers, Minor Jr. Arnold O. Beckman: One Hundred Years of Excellence. Philadelphia: Chemical Heritage Foundation, 2000.Google Scholar
Turner, Fred. From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veldman, Hans and Lagers, George. 50 Years Offshore. Delft: Foundation for Offshore Studies, 1997.Google Scholar
Yergin, Daniel. The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power. New York: Free Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Zygmont, Jeffrey. Microchip: An Idea, Its Genesis, and the Revolution It Created. Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 2003.Google Scholar
Baird, Davis, and Shew, Ashley. “Probing the History of Scanning Tunneling Microscopy.” In Discovering the Nanoscale, edited by Baird, Davis, Nordmann, Alfred, and Schummer, Joachim, 145156. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Berlin, Leslie. “Robert Noyce and Fairchild Semiconductor, 1957–1968.” Business History Review 75, no. 1 (2001): 63101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, Leslie. “The First Venture Capital Firm in Silicon Valley: Draper, Gaither & Anderson.” In Making the American Century: Essays on the Political Culture of Twentieth Century America, edited by Schulman, Bruce J., 155170. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braunschweig, B. L.Artificial Intelligence in the Petroleum World.” Revue de l’institut français du pétrole 45, no. 5 (1990): 683698.Google Scholar
Brock, David C.From Automation to Silicon Valley: The Automation Movement of the 1950s, Arnold Beckman, and William Shockley.” History and Technology 28, no. 4 (2012): 375401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busch, Andrew M.An Abstract Thing We Call ‘Intellectual Atmosphere.’Enterprise & Society 22, no. 3 (2021): 696738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Simon, and Tobias, Andrew M.. “Complexity in Corporate Modeling: A Review.” Business History 37, no. 2 (1995): 1744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coles, Bruce C., and Reinschmidt, Kenneth F.. “Computer-integrated Construction.” Civil Engineering—ASCE 64, no. 6 (1994): 5053.Google Scholar
Cool, Zero. “Oil Is the New Data.” Logic 9 (2019): 1530.Google Scholar
Cortada, James W.Progenitors of the Information Age: The Development of Chips and Computers.” In A Nation Transformed by Information: How Information Has Shaped the United States from Colonial Times to the Present, edited by Chandler, Alfred D. , Jr. and Cortada, James W., 177216. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Costello, Laurel Benchley. “Norway—A Growing Computer Technology.” Simulation 46, no. 4 (1986): 165168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisler, Matthew N.Exploding the Black Box: Personal Computing, the Notebook Battery Crisis, and Postindustrial Systems Thinking.” Technology and Culture 58, no. 2 (2017): 368391.Google ScholarPubMed
Ensmenger, Nathan. “The Environmental History of Computing.” Technology and Culture 59, no. 4S (2018): S7S33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, M. P.The New Economics of Innovation, Spillovers, and Agglomeration: A Review of Empirical Studies.” Economics of Innovation and New Technology 8, no. 1–2 (1999): 524.Google Scholar
Fong, Glenn R.ARPA Does Windows: The Defense Underpinning of the PC Revolution.” Business and Politics 3, no. 3 (2001): 213237.Google Scholar
Grier, David Alan. “Interviews: Edward Feigenbaum.” IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 35, no. 4 (2013): 7481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griliches, Z.Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth.” Bell Journal of Economics 10, no. 1 (1979): 92116.Google Scholar
Haigh, Thomas. “The History of Information Technology.” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 45, no. 1 (2011): 431487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, David M.IBM in American Politics, 1970–1999.” Business and Economic History 28, no. 2 (1999): 4959.Google Scholar
Heinrich, Thomas. “Cold War Armory: Military Contracting in Silicon Valley.” Enterprise & Society 3, no. 2 (2002): 247284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmstrom, Bengt, and Kaplan, Steven N.. “Corporate Governance and Merger Activity in the United States: Making Sense of the 1980s and 1990s.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 15, no. 2 (2001): 121144Google Scholar
Hsu, David H., and Kenney, Martin. “Organizing Venture Capital: The Rise and Demise of the American Research & Development Corporation, 1946–1973.” Industrial and Corporate Change 14, no. 4 (2005): 579616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Ann. “How Ford Invented the SQUID.” IEEE Spectrum 51, no. 11 (November 2014): 4044, 60–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Matthew L.How We Became Instrumentalists (Again): Data Positivism Since World War II.” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 48, no. 5 (2018): 673684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, Martin. “How Venture Capital Became a Component of the US National System of Innovation.” Industrial and Corporate Change 20, no. 6 (2011): 16771723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klepper, Steven. “The Origin and Growth of Industry Clusters: The Making of Silicon Valley and Detroit.” Journal of Urban Economics 67, no. 1 (2010): 1532.Google Scholar
Lécuyer, Christophe. “Silicon for Industry: Component Design, Mass Production, and the Move to Commercial Markets at Fairchild Semiconductor, 1960–1967.” History and Technology 16, no. 2 (1999): 179216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lécuyer, Christophe, and Brock, David C.. “The Materiality of Microelectronics.” History and Technology 22, no. 3 (2006): 301325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, Stuart W., and Kargon, Robert H.. “Selling Silicon Valley: Frederick Terman’s Model for Regional Advantage.” Business History Review 70, no. 4 (1996): 435472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, Allison. “Crystal History.” IEEE Spectrum, 58, no. 6 (2021): 68.Google Scholar
Meaney, Constance Squires. “State Policy and the Development of Taiwan’s Semiconductor Industry.” In The Role of the State in Taiwan’s Development, edited by Aberbach, Joel D., Dollar, David, and Sokoloff, Kenneth L., 170192. London: Routledge, 2015.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. S., and Whittier, N.. “Social Movement Spillover.” Social Problems 41, no. 2 (1994): 277298.Google Scholar
Mody, Cyrus C. M. “After the IC: Jack Kilby’s Solar Misadventure.” IEEE Spectrum 53, no. 10 (October 2016): 5055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Kevin. “Digital Highways: The New Telecommunications Era.” Geoforum 23, no. 3 (1992): 317332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Reagan, Douglas, and Fleming, Lee. “The FinFET Breakthrough and Networks of Innovation in the Semiconductor Industry, 1980–2005.” Technology and Culture 59, no. 2 (2019): 251288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Chad H.Controlling Man-Made Malaria: Corporate Modernisation and the Arabian American Oil Company’s Malaria Control Program in Saudi Arabia, 1947–1956.” Cold War History 12, no. 3 (2012): 473494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasek, Anne. “Seeing Carbon Through Silicon.” Logic 9 (2019): 7380.Google Scholar
Payette, Sandy. “Hopper and Dijkstra: Crisis, Revolution, and the Future of Programming.” IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 36, no. 4 (2014): 6473.Google Scholar
Perrons, Robert K.How Innovation and R&D Happen in the Upstream Oil and Gas Industry: Insights from a Global Survey.” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 124 (2014): 301312.Google Scholar
Priest, Tyler. “The Dilemmas of Oil Empire.” Journal of American History, 99, no. 1 (2012): 236251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, Tyler. “Hubbert’s Peak: The Great Debate over the End of Oil.” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 44, no. 1 (2014): 3779.Google Scholar
Priest, Tyler. “Seismic Innovations: The Digital Revolution in the Search for Oil and Gas.” In Energy in the Americas: Critical Reflections on Energy and History, edited by Kiddle, Amelia M., 179210. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2021.Google Scholar
Sarma, Sumita, and Li Sun, Sunny. “The Genesis of Fabless Business Model: Institutional Entrepreneurs in an Adaptive Ecosystem.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management 34, no. 3 (2017): 587617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slayton, Rebecca. “Efficient, Secure, Green: Digital Utopianism and the Challenge of Making the Electrical Grid ‘Smart.’Information & Culture 48, no. 4 (2013): 448478.Google Scholar
Stilgoe, Jack. “Machine Learning, Social Learning and the Governance of Self-Driving Cars.” Social Studies of Science 48, no. 1 (2018): 2556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, Gomer, Thompson, Glenn R., Chung, Chin-Wan, Barkmeyer, Edward, Carter, Fred, Templeton, Marjorie, Fox, Stephen, and Hartman, Berl. “Heterogeneous Distributed Database Systems for Production Use.” ACM Computing Surveys 22, no. 3 (1990): 237266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Usselman, Steven W.Fostering a Capacity for Compromise: Business, Government, and the Stages of Innovation in American Computing.” IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 18, no. 2 (1996): 3039.Google Scholar
Baker, Kevin T. “World Processors: Computer Simulation, the Limits to Growth, and the Birth of Sustainable Development.” PhD dissertation, History Department, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 2019.Google Scholar
Brock, David C. “Oil Exploration, Automation, and Bits: Pasadena Chemical Instrumentation Firms and the Electronic Computer Industry in the 1950s.” Paper presented at the Society for the History of Technology Annual Meeting, Portland, ME, 2013.Google Scholar
Choi, Hyungsub. “Manufacturing Knowledge in Transit: Technical Practice, Organizational Change, and the Rise of the Semiconductor Industry in the United States and Japan, 1948–1960.” PhD dissertation, Department of History of Science and Technology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 2007.Google Scholar
Cohen, Wesley Marc. “Firm Heterogeneity, Investment, and Industry Expansion: A Theoretical Framework and the Case of the Uranium Industry.” PhD dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 1981.Google Scholar
Fosbrook, Bretton. “How Scenarios Became Corporate Strategies: Alternative Futures and Uncertainty in Strategic Management.” PhD dissertation, Graduate Program in Science and Technology Studies, York University, Toronto, 2017.Google Scholar
Gallo, Jason. “Speaking of Science: The Role of the National Science Foundation in the Development of United States Information Infrastructure.” PhD dissertation, Field of Media, Technology, and Society, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 2008.Google Scholar
Hirshberg, Lauren. “Targeting Kwajalein: US Empire, Militarization, and Suburbanization of the Marshall Islands, 1944–1986.” PhD dissertation, History Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 2011.Google Scholar
Johnson, Ann. Environmental Regulation and Technological Development in the U.S. Auto Industry (Report in the History of Technology series). Washington, DC: Washington Center for Equitable Growth, 2016.Google Scholar
Jones, Geoffrey G., and Bouamane, Loubna. “‘Power from Sunshine’: A Business History of Solar Energy.” Harvard Business School Working Paper 12105, Boston: Harvard Business School, 2012.Google Scholar
Kimpel, Paul. “The Origins of Burroughs Extended Algol.” Paper for the UNITE Conference, Minneapolis, 2019.Google Scholar
Marshall, William Owen. “Tuning in Situ: Articulations of Voice, Affect, and Artifact in the Recording Studio.” PhD dissertation, Department of Science and Technology Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 2017.Google Scholar
Marshall, Owen. “The Oleaginous Voice: Auto-Tune, Linear Predictive Coding, and the Security-Petroleum Complex.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Mody, Cyrus C. M. “Complementary Scarcities: Oil, Food, and Life Itself.” Paper for Energy Transitions and International Cooperation in the 20th Century conference, Leibniz-Center for Contemporary History, Potsdam, 2021.Google Scholar
Nygaard, Pål. “Controlling the Flow of Oil and Gas Subsea: A Case Study of the Software OLGA.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
van Duijn, Jorijn. “Fortunes of High-Tech: A History of innovation at ASM International, 1958–2008.” PhD dissertation, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands, 2019.Google Scholar
Barnard, Thomas E. “The Maximum Entropy Spectrum and the Burg Technique.” Texas Instruments report for Office of Naval Research contract N00014-75-C-0101, June 25, 1975, accessed February 2, 2022, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a026626.pdf.Google Scholar
Byrne, Michael. “When Exxon Wanted to Be the Next Apple.” Vice, April 26, 2015, accessed February 2, 2022, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/5394x5/when-exxon-wanted-to-be-a-personal-computing-revolutionary.Google Scholar
Museum, Computer History. “Computer History Museum Adds Historic Xerox Alto Source Code to Its Software Source Code Series.” Press release, October 21, 2014, accessed February 2, 2022, https://computerhistory.org/press-releases/xerox-alto.Google Scholar
Farmer, Melanie A. “A Talk with 2017 ACM Fellow, Michael Kass.” ACM SIGGRAPH (blog), January 4, 2018, accessed February 2, 2022, https://blog.siggraph.org/2018/01/a-talk-with-2017-acm-fellow-michael-kass.html.Google Scholar
Gaboury, Jacob. “A Queer History of Computing.” Rhizome, February 19, 2013, accessed February 2, 2022, https://rhizome.org/editorial/2013/feb/19/queer-computing-1.Google Scholar
History, High Tech. “A Brief, Early History of Xerox PARC and the Development of the Personal Computer.” Blog, June 2, 2011, accessed February 2, 2022, https://hightechhistory.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/a-brief-early-history-of-xerox-parc-and-the-development-of-the-personal-computer.Google Scholar
Merchant, Brian. “How Google, Microsoft, and Big Tech Are Automating the Climate Crisis.” Gizmodo, February 21, 2019, accessed February 2, 2022, https://gizmodo.com/how-google-microsoft-and-big-tech-are-automating-the-1832790799.Google Scholar
Limited, Schlumberger. Schlumberger Annual Report 1982, accessed February 2, 2022, https://investorcenter.slb.com/static-files/781e0f6d-55e3-4f3a-8757-b07522531e4a.Google Scholar
Siegman, Anthony E. “Annual Progress Report and Report of Significant Accomplishments.” Ginzton Laboratory report #3568 to Joint Services Electronics Program on contract #N00014-75-C-0632, August 1983, accessed February 2, 2022, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a133360.pdf.Google Scholar
AI Magazine Google Scholar
Ars Technica Google Scholar
Business Week Google Scholar
Business Wire Google Scholar
Chemical Week Google Scholar
Computer Business News Google Scholar
Computerworld Google Scholar
De Correspondent Google Scholar
Electronic Business Google Scholar
Electronic News Google Scholar
Fiber Optics & Communications Newsletter Google Scholar
Financial Times Google Scholar
The Guardian Google Scholar
Infoworld Google Scholar
Lasers & Applications Google Scholar
MIT Technology Review Google Scholar
New Scientist Google Scholar
New York Times Google Scholar
Philadelphia Business Journal Google Scholar
PR Newswire Google Scholar
San Francisco Business Times Google Scholar
Satellite Communications Google Scholar
Satellite News Google Scholar
Treasury & Risk Management Google Scholar
Archive Center, King’s College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Arthur del Prado papers (private and unprocessed collection), Bilthoven, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Briscoe Center for American History, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Churchill Archives Center, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA.Google Scholar
DeGolyer Library Special Collections, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.Google Scholar
Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Frank, Howard. Interview conducted by Judy O’Neill, March 30, 1990. OH 188, Charles Babbage Institute, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Lorenzini, Robert E. Oral history interview conducted by Craig Addison, Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International, February 18, 2004. Computer History Museum reference X6196.2011.Google Scholar
Robinson, Enders. Oral history interview conducted by Andrew Goldstein, March 6, 1997. IEEE History Center.Google Scholar
Trimble, Charles. Oral history interview conducted by Charles Rino, September 25, 2018. Computer History Museum record no. X8786.2019.Google Scholar
Abbate, Janet. Inventing the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Abbate, Janet. Recoding Gender: Women’s Changing Participation in Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Akera, Atsushi. Calculating a Natural World: Scientists, Engineers, and Computers During the Rise of U.S. Cold War Research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Ante, Spencer E. Creative Capital: Georges Doriot and the Birth of Venture Capital. Boston: Harvard Business Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Bardini, Thierry. Bootstrapping: Douglas Engelbart, Coevolution, and the Origins of Personal Computing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Basosi, Duccio, Garavini, Giuliano, and Trentin, Massimiliano, eds. Counter-Shock: The Oil Counter-Revolution of the 1980s. London: Tauris, 2018.Google Scholar
Bassett, Ross Knox. To the Digital Age: Research Labs, Start-up Companies, and the Rise of MOS Technology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Bates, Charles C., Gaskell, Thomas F., and Rice, Robert B.. Geophysics in the Affairs of Man. Oxford: Pergamon, 1982.Google Scholar
Bini, Elisabetta, Garavini, Giuliano, and Romero, Federico, eds. Oil Shock: The 1973 Crisis and Its Economic Legacy. London: Tauris, 2016.Google Scholar
Block, Fred L., and Keller, Matthew R., eds. State of Innovation: The U.S. Government’s Role in Technology Development. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2011.Google Scholar
Brock, David C., ed. Understanding Moore’s Law: Four Decades of Innovation. Philadelphia: Chemical Heritage Foundation, 2006.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kelly, Martin, Aspray, William, Ensmenger, Nathan, and Yost, Jeffrey R., Computer: A History of the Information Machine. New York: Routledge, 2018.Google Scholar
Ceruzzi, Paul E. A History of Modern Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Chandler, Alfred D. Jr. Inventing the Electronic Century: The Epic Story of the Consumer Electronics and Computer Industries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Coates, Peter A. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Controversy: Technology, Conservation, and the Frontier. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Cohen, Noam. The Know-It-Alls: The Rise of Silicon Valley as a Political Powerhouse and Social Wrecking Ball. New York: New Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Cortada, James W. The Digital Hand: How Computers Changed the Work of American Manufacturing, Transportation, and Retail Industries. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Cortada, James W. IBM: The Rise and Fall and Reinvention of a Global Icon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2019.Google Scholar
Edwards, Paul. The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Ensmenger, Nathan. The Computer Boys Take Over: Computers, Programmers, and the Politics of Technical Expertise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Frantz, Gene. The Speak N Spell. Houston: Rice University OpenStax CNX, 2014.Google Scholar
Garavini, Giuliano. The Rise and Fall of OPEC in the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.Google Scholar
Gertner, Jon. The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation. New York: Penguin, 2012.Google Scholar
Gray, Robert M. Linear Predictive Coding and the Internet Protocol. Boston: Now Publishers, 2010.Google Scholar
Grinapol, Corinne. Reed Hastings and Netflix. New York: Rosen Publishing, 2014.Google Scholar
Hoddeson, Lillian, and Daitch, Vicki. True Genius: The Life and Science of John Bardeen, the Only Winner of Two Nobel Prizes in Physics. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Hoddeson, Lillian, and Garrett, Peter. The Man Who Saw Tomorrow: The Life and Inventions of Stanford R. Ovshinsky. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2018.Google Scholar
Huber, Matthew. Lifeblood: Oil, Freedom, and the Forces of Capital. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaacson, Walter. Steve Jobs. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011.Google Scholar
Kenney, Martin, ed., Understanding Silicon Valley: The Anatomy of an Entrepreneurial Region. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Lécuyer, Christophe. Making Silicon Valley: Innovation and the Growth of High-Tech, 1930–1970. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Leech, Brian. The City That Ate Itself: Butte, Montana and Its Expanding Berkeley Pit. Reno: University of Nevada Press, 2018.Google Scholar
LeMenager, Stephanie. Living Oil: Petroleum Culture in the American Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lojek, Bo. History of Semiconductor Engineering. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2007.Google Scholar
Malerba, Franco. The Semiconductor Business: The Economics of Rapid Growth and Decline. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Markoff, John. What the Dormouse Said: How the 60s Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry. London: Penguin, 2005.Google Scholar
Maugeri, Leonardo. The Age of Oil: The Mythology, History, and Future of the World’s Most Controversial Resource. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2006.Google Scholar
Mazzucatto, Mariana. The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. London: Anthem, 2013.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Timothy. Carbon Democracy: Political Power in the Age of Oil. London: Verso, 2011.Google Scholar
Morris, Peter J. T., ed. A Cultural History of Chemistry in the Modern Age. London: Bloomsbury, 2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Mara, Margaret. The Code: Silicon Valley and the Remaking of America. London: Penguin, 2019.Google Scholar
O’Mara, Margaret Pugh. Cities of Knowledge: Cold War Science and the Search for the Next Silicon Valley. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi, and Conway, Erik M.. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury, 2010.Google Scholar
Petrick, Elizabeth R. Making Computers Accessible: Disability Rights and Digital Technology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
Pirtle, Caleb III. Engineering the World: Stories from the First 75 Years of Texas Instruments. University Park, TX: Southern Methodist University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Pratt, Joseph A., Melosi, Martin V., and Brosnan, Kathleen A., eds. Energy Capitals: Local Impact, Global Influence. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2014.Google Scholar
Priest, Tyler. The Offshore Imperative: Shell Oil’s Search for Petroleum in Postwar America. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Proctor, Robert N., and Schiebinger, Londa, eds. Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Raaijmakers, René. De Architecten van ASML. Nijmegen, Netherlands: Techwatch Books, 2017.Google Scholar
Rankin, Joy Lisi. A People’s History of Computing in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018.Google Scholar
Redmond, Kent C., and Smith, Thomas M.. From Whirlwind to MITRE: The R&D Story of the SAGE Air Defense Computer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Reid, T. R. The Chip: How Two Americans Invented the Microchip and Launched a Revolution. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985.Google Scholar
Riordan, Michael, and Hoddeson, Lillian. Crystal Fire: The Invention of the Transistor and the Birth of the Information Age. New York: Norton, 1997.Google Scholar
Russell, Andrew. Open Standards and the Digital Age: History, Ideology, and Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seitz, Frederick, and Einspruch, Norman. Electronic Genie: The Tangled History of Silicon. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Shrock, Robert Rakes. Geology at MIT, 1865–1965 . Vol. 2, Department Operations and Products. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Shurkin, Joel N. Broken Genius: The Rise and Fall of William Shockley, Creator of the Electronic Age. London: Macmillan, 2006.Google Scholar
Sterling, Christopher H., Bernt, Phyllis W., and Martin, B. H. Weiss. Shaping American Telecommunications: A History of Technology, Policy, and Economics. New York: Routledge, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thackray, Arnold, Brock, David C., and Jones, Rachel. Moore’s Law: The Life of Gordon Moore, Silicon Valley’s Quiet Revolutionary. New York: Basic Books, 2015.Google Scholar
Thackray, Arnold, and Myers, Minor Jr. Arnold O. Beckman: One Hundred Years of Excellence. Philadelphia: Chemical Heritage Foundation, 2000.Google Scholar
Turner, Fred. From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veldman, Hans and Lagers, George. 50 Years Offshore. Delft: Foundation for Offshore Studies, 1997.Google Scholar
Yergin, Daniel. The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power. New York: Free Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Zygmont, Jeffrey. Microchip: An Idea, Its Genesis, and the Revolution It Created. Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 2003.Google Scholar
Baird, Davis, and Shew, Ashley. “Probing the History of Scanning Tunneling Microscopy.” In Discovering the Nanoscale, edited by Baird, Davis, Nordmann, Alfred, and Schummer, Joachim, 145156. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Berlin, Leslie. “Robert Noyce and Fairchild Semiconductor, 1957–1968.” Business History Review 75, no. 1 (2001): 63101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, Leslie. “The First Venture Capital Firm in Silicon Valley: Draper, Gaither & Anderson.” In Making the American Century: Essays on the Political Culture of Twentieth Century America, edited by Schulman, Bruce J., 155170. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braunschweig, B. L.Artificial Intelligence in the Petroleum World.” Revue de l’institut français du pétrole 45, no. 5 (1990): 683698.Google Scholar
Brock, David C.From Automation to Silicon Valley: The Automation Movement of the 1950s, Arnold Beckman, and William Shockley.” History and Technology 28, no. 4 (2012): 375401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busch, Andrew M.An Abstract Thing We Call ‘Intellectual Atmosphere.’Enterprise & Society 22, no. 3 (2021): 696738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Simon, and Tobias, Andrew M.. “Complexity in Corporate Modeling: A Review.” Business History 37, no. 2 (1995): 1744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coles, Bruce C., and Reinschmidt, Kenneth F.. “Computer-integrated Construction.” Civil Engineering—ASCE 64, no. 6 (1994): 5053.Google Scholar
Cool, Zero. “Oil Is the New Data.” Logic 9 (2019): 1530.Google Scholar
Cortada, James W.Progenitors of the Information Age: The Development of Chips and Computers.” In A Nation Transformed by Information: How Information Has Shaped the United States from Colonial Times to the Present, edited by Chandler, Alfred D. , Jr. and Cortada, James W., 177216. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Costello, Laurel Benchley. “Norway—A Growing Computer Technology.” Simulation 46, no. 4 (1986): 165168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisler, Matthew N.Exploding the Black Box: Personal Computing, the Notebook Battery Crisis, and Postindustrial Systems Thinking.” Technology and Culture 58, no. 2 (2017): 368391.Google ScholarPubMed
Ensmenger, Nathan. “The Environmental History of Computing.” Technology and Culture 59, no. 4S (2018): S7S33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, M. P.The New Economics of Innovation, Spillovers, and Agglomeration: A Review of Empirical Studies.” Economics of Innovation and New Technology 8, no. 1–2 (1999): 524.Google Scholar
Fong, Glenn R.ARPA Does Windows: The Defense Underpinning of the PC Revolution.” Business and Politics 3, no. 3 (2001): 213237.Google Scholar
Grier, David Alan. “Interviews: Edward Feigenbaum.” IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 35, no. 4 (2013): 7481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griliches, Z.Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth.” Bell Journal of Economics 10, no. 1 (1979): 92116.Google Scholar
Haigh, Thomas. “The History of Information Technology.” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 45, no. 1 (2011): 431487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, David M.IBM in American Politics, 1970–1999.” Business and Economic History 28, no. 2 (1999): 4959.Google Scholar
Heinrich, Thomas. “Cold War Armory: Military Contracting in Silicon Valley.” Enterprise & Society 3, no. 2 (2002): 247284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmstrom, Bengt, and Kaplan, Steven N.. “Corporate Governance and Merger Activity in the United States: Making Sense of the 1980s and 1990s.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 15, no. 2 (2001): 121144Google Scholar
Hsu, David H., and Kenney, Martin. “Organizing Venture Capital: The Rise and Demise of the American Research & Development Corporation, 1946–1973.” Industrial and Corporate Change 14, no. 4 (2005): 579616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Ann. “How Ford Invented the SQUID.” IEEE Spectrum 51, no. 11 (November 2014): 4044, 60–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Matthew L.How We Became Instrumentalists (Again): Data Positivism Since World War II.” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 48, no. 5 (2018): 673684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, Martin. “How Venture Capital Became a Component of the US National System of Innovation.” Industrial and Corporate Change 20, no. 6 (2011): 16771723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klepper, Steven. “The Origin and Growth of Industry Clusters: The Making of Silicon Valley and Detroit.” Journal of Urban Economics 67, no. 1 (2010): 1532.Google Scholar
Lécuyer, Christophe. “Silicon for Industry: Component Design, Mass Production, and the Move to Commercial Markets at Fairchild Semiconductor, 1960–1967.” History and Technology 16, no. 2 (1999): 179216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lécuyer, Christophe, and Brock, David C.. “The Materiality of Microelectronics.” History and Technology 22, no. 3 (2006): 301325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, Stuart W., and Kargon, Robert H.. “Selling Silicon Valley: Frederick Terman’s Model for Regional Advantage.” Business History Review 70, no. 4 (1996): 435472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, Allison. “Crystal History.” IEEE Spectrum, 58, no. 6 (2021): 68.Google Scholar
Meaney, Constance Squires. “State Policy and the Development of Taiwan’s Semiconductor Industry.” In The Role of the State in Taiwan’s Development, edited by Aberbach, Joel D., Dollar, David, and Sokoloff, Kenneth L., 170192. London: Routledge, 2015.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. S., and Whittier, N.. “Social Movement Spillover.” Social Problems 41, no. 2 (1994): 277298.Google Scholar
Mody, Cyrus C. M. “After the IC: Jack Kilby’s Solar Misadventure.” IEEE Spectrum 53, no. 10 (October 2016): 5055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Kevin. “Digital Highways: The New Telecommunications Era.” Geoforum 23, no. 3 (1992): 317332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Reagan, Douglas, and Fleming, Lee. “The FinFET Breakthrough and Networks of Innovation in the Semiconductor Industry, 1980–2005.” Technology and Culture 59, no. 2 (2019): 251288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Chad H.Controlling Man-Made Malaria: Corporate Modernisation and the Arabian American Oil Company’s Malaria Control Program in Saudi Arabia, 1947–1956.” Cold War History 12, no. 3 (2012): 473494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasek, Anne. “Seeing Carbon Through Silicon.” Logic 9 (2019): 7380.Google Scholar
Payette, Sandy. “Hopper and Dijkstra: Crisis, Revolution, and the Future of Programming.” IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 36, no. 4 (2014): 6473.Google Scholar
Perrons, Robert K.How Innovation and R&D Happen in the Upstream Oil and Gas Industry: Insights from a Global Survey.” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 124 (2014): 301312.Google Scholar
Priest, Tyler. “The Dilemmas of Oil Empire.” Journal of American History, 99, no. 1 (2012): 236251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, Tyler. “Hubbert’s Peak: The Great Debate over the End of Oil.” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 44, no. 1 (2014): 3779.Google Scholar
Priest, Tyler. “Seismic Innovations: The Digital Revolution in the Search for Oil and Gas.” In Energy in the Americas: Critical Reflections on Energy and History, edited by Kiddle, Amelia M., 179210. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2021.Google Scholar
Sarma, Sumita, and Li Sun, Sunny. “The Genesis of Fabless Business Model: Institutional Entrepreneurs in an Adaptive Ecosystem.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management 34, no. 3 (2017): 587617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slayton, Rebecca. “Efficient, Secure, Green: Digital Utopianism and the Challenge of Making the Electrical Grid ‘Smart.’Information & Culture 48, no. 4 (2013): 448478.Google Scholar
Stilgoe, Jack. “Machine Learning, Social Learning and the Governance of Self-Driving Cars.” Social Studies of Science 48, no. 1 (2018): 2556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, Gomer, Thompson, Glenn R., Chung, Chin-Wan, Barkmeyer, Edward, Carter, Fred, Templeton, Marjorie, Fox, Stephen, and Hartman, Berl. “Heterogeneous Distributed Database Systems for Production Use.” ACM Computing Surveys 22, no. 3 (1990): 237266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Usselman, Steven W.Fostering a Capacity for Compromise: Business, Government, and the Stages of Innovation in American Computing.” IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 18, no. 2 (1996): 3039.Google Scholar
Baker, Kevin T. “World Processors: Computer Simulation, the Limits to Growth, and the Birth of Sustainable Development.” PhD dissertation, History Department, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 2019.Google Scholar
Brock, David C. “Oil Exploration, Automation, and Bits: Pasadena Chemical Instrumentation Firms and the Electronic Computer Industry in the 1950s.” Paper presented at the Society for the History of Technology Annual Meeting, Portland, ME, 2013.Google Scholar
Choi, Hyungsub. “Manufacturing Knowledge in Transit: Technical Practice, Organizational Change, and the Rise of the Semiconductor Industry in the United States and Japan, 1948–1960.” PhD dissertation, Department of History of Science and Technology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 2007.Google Scholar
Cohen, Wesley Marc. “Firm Heterogeneity, Investment, and Industry Expansion: A Theoretical Framework and the Case of the Uranium Industry.” PhD dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 1981.Google Scholar
Fosbrook, Bretton. “How Scenarios Became Corporate Strategies: Alternative Futures and Uncertainty in Strategic Management.” PhD dissertation, Graduate Program in Science and Technology Studies, York University, Toronto, 2017.Google Scholar
Gallo, Jason. “Speaking of Science: The Role of the National Science Foundation in the Development of United States Information Infrastructure.” PhD dissertation, Field of Media, Technology, and Society, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 2008.Google Scholar
Hirshberg, Lauren. “Targeting Kwajalein: US Empire, Militarization, and Suburbanization of the Marshall Islands, 1944–1986.” PhD dissertation, History Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 2011.Google Scholar
Johnson, Ann. Environmental Regulation and Technological Development in the U.S. Auto Industry (Report in the History of Technology series). Washington, DC: Washington Center for Equitable Growth, 2016.Google Scholar
Jones, Geoffrey G., and Bouamane, Loubna. “‘Power from Sunshine’: A Business History of Solar Energy.” Harvard Business School Working Paper 12105, Boston: Harvard Business School, 2012.Google Scholar
Kimpel, Paul. “The Origins of Burroughs Extended Algol.” Paper for the UNITE Conference, Minneapolis, 2019.Google Scholar
Marshall, William Owen. “Tuning in Situ: Articulations of Voice, Affect, and Artifact in the Recording Studio.” PhD dissertation, Department of Science and Technology Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 2017.Google Scholar
Marshall, Owen. “The Oleaginous Voice: Auto-Tune, Linear Predictive Coding, and the Security-Petroleum Complex.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Mody, Cyrus C. M. “Complementary Scarcities: Oil, Food, and Life Itself.” Paper for Energy Transitions and International Cooperation in the 20th Century conference, Leibniz-Center for Contemporary History, Potsdam, 2021.Google Scholar
Nygaard, Pål. “Controlling the Flow of Oil and Gas Subsea: A Case Study of the Software OLGA.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
van Duijn, Jorijn. “Fortunes of High-Tech: A History of innovation at ASM International, 1958–2008.” PhD dissertation, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands, 2019.Google Scholar
Barnard, Thomas E. “The Maximum Entropy Spectrum and the Burg Technique.” Texas Instruments report for Office of Naval Research contract N00014-75-C-0101, June 25, 1975, accessed February 2, 2022, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a026626.pdf.Google Scholar
Byrne, Michael. “When Exxon Wanted to Be the Next Apple.” Vice, April 26, 2015, accessed February 2, 2022, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/5394x5/when-exxon-wanted-to-be-a-personal-computing-revolutionary.Google Scholar
Museum, Computer History. “Computer History Museum Adds Historic Xerox Alto Source Code to Its Software Source Code Series.” Press release, October 21, 2014, accessed February 2, 2022, https://computerhistory.org/press-releases/xerox-alto.Google Scholar
Farmer, Melanie A. “A Talk with 2017 ACM Fellow, Michael Kass.” ACM SIGGRAPH (blog), January 4, 2018, accessed February 2, 2022, https://blog.siggraph.org/2018/01/a-talk-with-2017-acm-fellow-michael-kass.html.Google Scholar
Gaboury, Jacob. “A Queer History of Computing.” Rhizome, February 19, 2013, accessed February 2, 2022, https://rhizome.org/editorial/2013/feb/19/queer-computing-1.Google Scholar
History, High Tech. “A Brief, Early History of Xerox PARC and the Development of the Personal Computer.” Blog, June 2, 2011, accessed February 2, 2022, https://hightechhistory.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/a-brief-early-history-of-xerox-parc-and-the-development-of-the-personal-computer.Google Scholar
Merchant, Brian. “How Google, Microsoft, and Big Tech Are Automating the Climate Crisis.” Gizmodo, February 21, 2019, accessed February 2, 2022, https://gizmodo.com/how-google-microsoft-and-big-tech-are-automating-the-1832790799.Google Scholar
Limited, Schlumberger. Schlumberger Annual Report 1982, accessed February 2, 2022, https://investorcenter.slb.com/static-files/781e0f6d-55e3-4f3a-8757-b07522531e4a.Google Scholar
Siegman, Anthony E. “Annual Progress Report and Report of Significant Accomplishments.” Ginzton Laboratory report #3568 to Joint Services Electronics Program on contract #N00014-75-C-0632, August 1983, accessed February 2, 2022, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a133360.pdf.Google Scholar
AI Magazine Google Scholar
Ars Technica Google Scholar
Business Week Google Scholar
Business Wire Google Scholar
Chemical Week Google Scholar
Computer Business News Google Scholar
Computerworld Google Scholar
De Correspondent Google Scholar
Electronic Business Google Scholar
Electronic News Google Scholar
Fiber Optics & Communications Newsletter Google Scholar
Financial Times Google Scholar
The Guardian Google Scholar
Infoworld Google Scholar
Lasers & Applications Google Scholar
MIT Technology Review Google Scholar
New Scientist Google Scholar
New York Times Google Scholar
Philadelphia Business Journal Google Scholar
PR Newswire Google Scholar
San Francisco Business Times Google Scholar
Satellite Communications Google Scholar
Satellite News Google Scholar
Treasury & Risk Management Google Scholar
Archive Center, King’s College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Arthur del Prado papers (private and unprocessed collection), Bilthoven, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Briscoe Center for American History, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Churchill Archives Center, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA.Google Scholar
DeGolyer Library Special Collections, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.Google Scholar
Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Frank, Howard. Interview conducted by Judy O’Neill, March 30, 1990. OH 188, Charles Babbage Institute, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Lorenzini, Robert E. Oral history interview conducted by Craig Addison, Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International, February 18, 2004. Computer History Museum reference X6196.2011.Google Scholar
Robinson, Enders. Oral history interview conducted by Andrew Goldstein, March 6, 1997. IEEE History Center.Google Scholar
Trimble, Charles. Oral history interview conducted by Charles Rino, September 25, 2018. Computer History Museum record no. X8786.2019.Google Scholar