The US has some of the same checkered past, though I did see an interview with a Sioux(Comanche?) Indian Chief who said we shouldn't feel too bad, as the Indians gave as good as they got, but they were just the side that lost. 

Well the aborigines of Australia didn't give as good as they got. They did not belong to a kingdom with one king, that could quickly rally united armies in defence against the invaders, they belonged to separately run clans and each clan had its own clan chiefs and these clan chiefs and their clans interacted with each other according to very complex and well evolved rules of chivalry passed down for generations and originating from their very spiritual 'dreamtime'.

Men would fight to protect their honour or their clan's honour, there were squabbles between clans that would also be resolved with organised fights between their best warriors to resolve which clan was the winner and which was the loser, the women and children would watch on in complete safety. What they couldn't fight were land grabbing, immoral, capitalistic, opportunists who did not appear to have any code of chivalry that in any way applied to the aborigines. 

The invaders poisoned their food and deliberately gave them blankets infected with scabs from diseases that the aborigines had no resistance to. They saw aborigines as no better than animals simply because they lived in harmony with their land and didn't fence, plunder and destroy it to make a quick buck. They declared Australia an uninhabited 'Terra Nullus' and gave no human rights at all to the aborigines who were healthy and rich in every way when they arrived and the capitalism that oppressed them then made them 'poor' in every way. 

The capitalistic invaders chopped down their forests, fenced their land and then killed any aborigines who mistakenly trespassed on their own former land or killed their sheep or cattle for food, believing as they always had that these animals on their heritage lands were there still available to be hunted. The aborigines could not understand these dishonorable, unchivalrous people and would try to avoid them but the land grab over the following decades and then centuries eventually left them with nothing but unfarmable desert, until that was also then identified as a massive source of minerals resources for capitalistic mining to exploit. 

As I said earlier there were well over a million aborigines living in harmony with each other and the land and the indigenous flora and fauna, they saw themselves not as land owners but as the custodians of the land and its creatures. Every animal was protected by a clan made up of people from many clans that belonged to that animal totem, assigned to them by their mothers during their pregnancy and the sacred spots for these animals could only be visited and cared for by people from that animal clan, no one else. The whole system worked beautifully and there is a lot that we could probably learn from it, with regard to environmental and animal conservation. 

There was no anthropogenic global warming, land degradation and water pollution or massive animal and plant extinctions under this ancient, well proven and tried harmonious indigenous system, as is currently the case under growing, unchecked, global world capitalism currently hurtling  headlong towards inevitable, global disaster for everyone and everything.

These are the disastrous effects of raw, unfettered, capitalistic opportunism, though I must say what happened in Australia was even worse than in many other invaded and conquered countries and to many indigenous people because it was pure unadulterated genocide of people that they regarded as sub-human animals, conducted by these invaders who were simply following their own laws based upon centuries of imperialistic, capitalistic, class based, opportunistic, religious, white supremacy. What they found in Australia was the nearest thing to practising, fully functional Marxism that the world has ever seen, then they annihilated it, so at least let's recognise that now.

...but DEC went out of business...

This is the problem I have with such terminology and sentiment.  DEC was acquired by Compaq.  It's sort of like claiming I worked for EDS and lost my job because IBM took over and hired me instead.  No exactly the same thing as those people that actually lose their jobs.

The reason why this is problematic is that most of these corporations never actually go out of business.  Since they don't actually have a physical existence, they are acquired and simply morph into a different entity.  So, while you can argue that they [whatever the legal piece of paper is that defines them] no longer "exist", in a practical sense, nothing of the sort actually  happened.  The products, the markets, and everything that defined them was simply transferred to another corporation.  That's almost like arguing that subsidiaries represent separate competitive businesses.