Selkirk Ventures

Selkirk Ventures We are passionate about creating business successes using technology. We specialise in technology for marketing, investment, ecommerce, and trading.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/14e7dKYvLrM/?mibextid=wwXIfr
11/08/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/14e7dKYvLrM/?mibextid=wwXIfr

In 1962, a Black inventor created a microphone at Bell Labs. It was the size of a dime. It didn't need a battery.

Today, that exact piece of hardware sits inside ninety percent of the world's communication devices. The corporation that owned the building made billions. The man who built the prototype made a different kind of demand.

The laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey, were a fortress of mid-century science. Men in thin ties and short-sleeved button-downs walked the linoleum halls. The air smelled faintly of ozone and floor wax. James West had a small office, a soldering iron kept at exactly 600 degrees, and a persistent mechanical problem.

At the time, the world communicated through heavy, fragile instruments. Traditional microphones relied on large, cumbersome power sources. They required a continuous polarizing voltage to operate. They were expensive to build and remarkably easy to break. If a telephone receiver was dropped on a hardwood floor, the internal brass components often shattered.

West and his colleague, a German-born acoustician named Gerhard Sessler, were given a specific directive. They needed to build something microscopic. A microphone that could hold a permanent electrical charge without an external battery.

They were working inside the most prestigious scientific facility on earth. Bell Labs was the undisputed epicenter of American innovation, a place where the brightest minds in physics and acoustics were given near-limitless resources. But inside the acoustic research department, West was operating with synthetic plastics that traditional engineers did not trust.

The initial trials were quiet disasters. They tested Mylar. The first prototypes lost their charge in a matter of hours, rendering the microphone dead. They tested Teflon. The audio came back distorted, thin, and entirely unusable for human conversation.

They subjected the materials to basic thermal stress. The synthetic film melted into useless plastic pools on the workbench. West's desk was constantly covered in discarded metal rings, burnt polymer strips, and failed acoustic chambers.

The timeline stretched from weeks into months. Institutional patience began to thin. If this polymer experiment failed, the global manufacturing industry would simply continue building the same heavy brass and carbon components they had relied upon since the 1920s. There was no scientific guarantee that plastic could ever hold a permanent electrostatic charge. The fundamental physics of the era suggested it was a waste of laboratory space and corporate funding.

At the time, corporate research facilities operated under a strict intellectual property framework. According to standard employment contracts of the era, any patent filed by a staff scientist belonged entirely to the corporation. The inventor received a salary and a nominal internal award, usually a wooden plaque and one single dollar. The company received the exclusive rights to manufacture, license, and profit in perpetuity. The system was designed to separate the creator from the capital.

By late 1962, the mathematics finally aligned with the physical materials. They found the right sequence. The foil electret microphone was finalized.

It was a piece of metalized Teflon foil, stretched tight over a backplate. It was remarkably cheap to produce. It was rugged enough to survive being dropped on concrete. It was tiny enough to fit inside an astronaut's helmet, a hearing aid, and eventually, a cellular phone.

The patent was officially filed under the corporation's name. The global manufacturing lines retooled almost overnight. The technology became the absolute industry standard, rendering previous microphones obsolete. The licensing profits for the institution scaled rapidly into the billions.

West did not ask the executives for a cut of the money. He knew the terms of his employment. Instead, he looked around the Murray Hill cafeteria.

In a massive facility employing thousands of the nation's top scientific minds, he was one of the only Black inventors on staff. The room was homogenous by design. The pipeline feeding the laboratory came from universities that actively excluded minority STEM students.

West used his sudden internal leverage as the co-creator of their most profitable new technology. He didn't ask the administration to politely review their hiring policies. He forced them to do it.

He walked into the executive offices and co-founded a corporate research fellowship program. He demanded corporate funding to bring minority students into the laboratories. He audited the recruitment pipelines himself, traveling to universities to find the students the system was deliberately ignoring.

He alienated colleagues. He had a habit of keeping a running tally of the empty excuses human resources executives gave him, reading them back verbatim in boardroom meetings. He interrupted vice presidents mid-sentence when they cited a lack of qualified applicants. He made lasting enemies in the administration building. He did not care.

Over the next four decades, the years compressed into a steady rhythm of friction and progress. His fellowship program placed hundreds of minority students into graduate programs and corporate laboratories across the country. He personally mentored scientists who would go on to hold their own patents, direct their own research facilities, and run their own departments.

He spent his days in the acoustic lab securing over 250 additional patents. He spent his evenings making sure the door he had walked through stayed wedged open for the people standing outside it.

The cost was entirely personal, measured in thousands of unseen hours. He sacrificed his own research time to sit in hostile administrative meetings. He missed dinners at home to review scholarship applications and rewrite corporate policy drafts. He did the unglamorous, exhausting bureaucratic work of tracking corporate funds and fighting with accountants who wanted to shrink the program's budget.

He built the microphone that powers the modern world, then spent the next forty years forcing the system to hand it to someone else.

The foil electret technology is sitting in your pocket right now. It is inside every laptop on earth, every baby monitor in every nursery, every smart speaker on every kitchen counter. The physical world relies entirely on the polymer foil he tested on that New Jersey workbench.

The original Bell Labs facility went through multiple corporate acquisitions. The building changed hands. The corporate structure shifted. The executives who argued with him are gone.

The fellowship program he built is still running. The pipeline he forced into existence is still placing minority scientists into laboratories where they belong.

He is ninety-five years old. He holds the National Medal of Technology and Innovation. His name is carved into the Inventors Hall of Fame.

He still goes to a laboratory every morning.

James West: the inventor who wired the world and forced the door open.

Source: National Inventors Hall of Fame.
Verified via: The Franklin Institute, Johns Hopkins University Archives.
(Some details summarized for brevity.)

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1ckQNQFF8v/
23/07/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1ckQNQFF8v/

David Neeleman could not get through school. Dyslexia and ADHD made standardized tests close to impossible, and he eventually dropped out of the University of Utah without a degree.

What he could do was build things. In 1984 he co-founded a small discount airline called Morris Air and ran it so well that Southwest bought the company in 1993. Neeleman was 34 and suddenly wealthy, but the money was not the point. He had built Morris Air on Southwest's model, he idolized Herb Kelleher, and he had quietly hoped to run that airline one day.

Kelleher fired him after 5 months.

It got worse. Neeleman had signed a non-compete, so he was barred from starting an airline in the United States for 5 years. He went to Canada and helped found WestJet instead, and waited.

The moment he was free, he built the airline he had been designing in his head the whole time. JetBlue launched in 2000, and he ran it in a way nobody in the industry recognized. He set his own salary at $200,000, a fraction of what rival chief executives took, then gave the entire amount away every year to a fund for crew members hit by disaster. His crew started matching it out of their own paychecks. He turned down stock options completely. "Why do I need stock options?" he said, arguing they should go to people who had less than he did.

He flew his own airline nearly every week, worked the cabin, helped unload bags and clean planes, and checked luggage at JFK. "We have not built our company on the backs of our people," he said.

In 2007, after a winter storm collapsed JetBlue's operation and stranded passengers for hours, he was removed as chief executive of the airline he had founded.

So he started over. Neeleman went on to found Azul in Brazil and Breeze Airways back home, and at 66 he is still running one of them. 5 airlines, built by a man who never finished college.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DJcxKA17Y/
14/07/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DJcxKA17Y/

Is it England, Great Britain, or the United Kingdom? If you've ever been confused by these terms, you're not alone. It is one of the most common geographical mix-ups, so here's a simple guide to help keep them straight.

England is one of the four countries that make up the United Kingdom. The other three are Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. London is both the capital of England and the capital of the United Kingdom.

Great Britain is the name of the large island made up of England, Scotland, and Wales. The island of Ireland—including both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—is separate. Although people often use "Britain" as a shorter name for the United Kingdom, the two are not geographically identical.

The United Kingdom (UK) is a sovereign country. Its full official name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is the political union of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

In other words:

England + Scotland + Wales = Great Britain

Great Britain + Northern Ireland = the United Kingdom

Several other related terms can also be confusing.

The British Isles is a geographical term for the archipelago of more than 6,000 islands that includes Great Britain, the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands. While the Republic of Ireland is geographically part of the archipelago, it is a completely separate and independent nation from the United Kingdom. It is worth noting that some people in Ireland dislike the term "British Isles" because Ireland is an independent country, so the alternative phrase "Britain and Ireland" is sometimes used instead.

The Crown refers to the institution of the monarchy and the state. In a legal sense, it is the personification of the government. The British monarch is the head of state for the United Kingdom and several other independent countries known as the Commonwealth realms.

The Commonwealth of Nations is a voluntary association of 56 independent countries. Most were once part of the British Empire, including Canada, Australia, and India. While the British monarch serves as the symbolic Head of the Commonwealth, most member countries are republics or have their own monarchs. All members are fully independent and sovereign nations.

To put it simply: Great Britain is the island, the United Kingdom is the country, and England is a part of that country. The British Isles is the neighborhood, the Commonwealth is the global association, and the Crown is the legal institution behind it all.

Did you find this breakdown helpful, or is it still as confusing as ever?

03/05/2026

Did you know? ... HRH William, The Prince of Wales is legally NOT required to pay income tax. DON'T STOP HERE! Keep reading ...

However, HRH has ALWAYS paid income and capital gains tax voluntarily (As has HM The King!) and he does so at the highest rate. The Sunday Times has reported HRH is one of Britain's largest taxpayers and is said to pay up to £7 million in income tax a year ~ approximately $9.5 million US.

HRH does NOT receive an income from The Sovereign Grant which is the amount of money provided by Government to the Royal Household in support of The Sovereign's official duties, including the maintenance of the Occupied Royal Palaces: Buckingham Palace, St James’s Palace, Clarence House, Marlborough House Mews, the residential and office areas of Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle and the buildings in the Home and Great Parks at Windsor, and Hampton Court Mews and Paddocks.

He instead receives his income from the Duchy of Cornwall, a private land estate worth approximately £1.1 billion, inherited by every heir to the throne since the 14th century. The Prince of Wales receives the annual net surplus of the Duchy of Cornwall and uses a large proportion of the funds to meet the cost of his public and charitable work. From this income he also pays the wages of his wife and in the distant future that income will also pay the wages of his children who may work on behalf of The Crown as well as, if they are married, their spouses.

The Duchy of Cornwall is inherited by The Prince of Wales automatically on the day his parent accedes to the throne. For King Charles that was in February 1952 and for the currently Prince of Wales, Prince William, that was in September 2022.

In time, the Duchy of Cornwall will automatically pass down to HRH Prince George of Wales upon Prince William's accession to the throne and, once again, it will automatically pass down to Prince George's eldest child and heir upon Prince George's accession to the throne and so on and so forth.

It should also be noted ~ The requirement for the monarch to pay income tax evolved through several reigns before being entirely abolished for a time in the 1930s.

Queen Victoria voluntarily paid income tax as far back as 1842 and the voluntary paying of income tax continued through the reigns of Edward VII and George V. Government granted a tax exemption to King George VI on the grounds that The Sovereign "naturally" should not pay tax and the exemption remained in effect until 1993 when, following a devastating fire at Windsor Castle Queen Elizabeth II voluntarily began paying taxes. By then the now Charles III had already been paying taxes voluntarily for decades.

Since 2001 the monarchy has published their annual accounts making the royal finances more transparent.

Read more: https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0

Shared from History & Lives of the British Royals
https://www.facebook.com/History-Lives-of-the-British-Royals-122845112442353/

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1KU6jB2KLa/
02/05/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1KU6jB2KLa/

The King and I

I hadn’t planned on watching King Charles III address Congress. I assumed I’d absorb the highlights later, filtered through the usual churn of headlines and commentary. But something made me pause, just for a moment, and in that brief glance, I found myself unexpectedly drawn in. There was a quiet gravity to his presence, a composure that didn’t demand attention so much as earn it. His words were measured, deliberate, and carried the weight of history without ever becoming heavy. It wasn’t just what he said, it was how he said it, the cadence, the restraint, the unmistakable sense that each phrase had been considered rather than performed. Before I knew it, I wasn’t skimming. I was listening. Fully. In an era defined by noise, urgency, and theatrical outrage, it felt almost foreign to witness something dignified and unhurried. Whatever one’s views on monarchy, there was something undeniably compelling about watching a speaker who understands not just the power of language, but the responsibility that comes with it.

What struck me most wasn’t simply the content of the speech, it was the reminder of what language sounds like when it’s treated with respect. Full sentences. Complete thoughts. A rhythm that builds meaning instead of chasing applause. This is what leadership sounds like when it’s informed by history rather than inflated by ego. Charles spoke of alliances not as leverage, but as commitments. He invoked NATO not as a transaction, but as a shared defense of democratic stability. He spoke of Ukraine not as a bargaining chip, but as a moral responsibility. And when he addressed the climate crisis, he framed it correctly, as a systemic threat to prosperity, security, and continuity itself. There was no need for exaggeration, no need for spectacle. Just clarity. And that’s where the contrast becomes impossible to ignore, because when language is reduced to slogans, grievance, and performance, it stops illuminating and starts obscuring. One man constructs an argument; another constructs a reaction. One understands that words carry weight; the other treats them as disposable. Listening to Charles, you’re reminded that rhetoric, when done properly, doesn’t inflame, it clarifies. It connects. It aspires.

What made the moment even more striking was its subtlety. This wasn’t a rebuke. It was something far more effective: a quiet, impeccably delivered reminder of what democratic leadership can look like at its best. When he spoke of checks and balances, rooted in the legacy of Magna Carta, it wasn’t just a history lesson, it was a mirror. When he said America’s words carry weight, and its actions carry even more, it landed not as praise, but as a challenge. A gentle one, but unmistakable. And then there was Queen Camilla, moving through her visit with a different kind of authority, one grounded not in power, but in presence. Her appearance at the New York Public Library, highlighting literacy and storytelling through her Reading Room initiative, felt like a reminder of something we too often overlook: that culture, learning, and curiosity are forms of leadership too. In a time when so much public discourse is reduced to confrontation, she chose connection. In a moment that could have been ceremonial, she made it human.

Together, they offered something rare over those few days, not perfection, not nostalgia, but perspective. A glimpse of what it looks like when public figures understand the difference between visibility and substance, between performance and purpose. And maybe that’s the real lesson. Because regardless of how any of us feel about monarchy, this visit wasn’t about crowns or titles. It was about contrast. It was about being reminded, quietly, almost gently, that leadership still has a vocabulary, that dignity is not weakness, that restraint is not absence, and that words, when chosen carefully, can still build something instead of tearing it down. For a brief moment, the noise softened, the temperature dropped, and if you were willing to listen, not just hear, but actually listen, you could feel it. Not a return to the past, not a longing for kings, just a reminder of what’s still possible.

— Michael Jochum
Not Just a Drummer: Reflections on Art, Politics, Dogs, and the Human Condition

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BFmBXZV8x/
30/04/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BFmBXZV8x/

Pull up a chair. If you missed the clips from the State Dinner last night (April 28, 2026), you missed a total masterclass in "Diplomatic Shade." King Charles III just gave us a history lesson that was as sharp as it was hilarious.

The King was responding to the President's recent jab that without the U.S., Europe would be "speaking German." Charles didn't skip a beat, firing back: "Dare I say that if it wasn't for us, you'd be speaking French."

Here is the historical "tea" behind that remark:

The Global Power Struggle (1756–1763)
Long before the United States was even a dream, the British and the French were locked in the Seven Years' War (known in America as the French and Indian War). They weren't just fighting for patches of dirt; they were fighting for the "soul" of North America. At the time, France held massive territories stretching from Canada down the Mississippi River, effectively pinning the British colonies to the East Coast.

The British Victory
If King Charles’s ancestors hadn't won that war, the map of North America would look completely different today. The British victory in 1763 forced France to cede almost all its North American territory. Without that win, George Washington might have grown up a subject of King Louis XV, and the "American" culture we know today would likely have been entirely Francophone.

The Irony of the "Special Relationship"
The King was essentially reminding everyone that while the U.S. helped save Britain in the 1940s, Britain "saved" the future U.S. from being a French colony in the 1760s. It’s a 250-year-old game of geopolitical "I owe you one."

The Takeaway
This wasn't just a witty retort; it was a brilliant bit of soft power. As we celebrate the U.S. Semiquincentennial (the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence) this year, Charles is subtly reminding us that the "Special Relationship" isn't a one-way street. It is a long, messy, and deeply interconnected family history.

Address

207 Regent Street, Third Floor
London
W1B3HH

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Selkirk Ventures posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share