Who Invented the Computer? The Legal Battle That Changed Computing History

Rating:
Summary: paranoia
Review: (a) Author could not understand the difference between a computer and components. A computer is an integrated entity of componets arranged properly by the architect. A component, regardless of its importance, is just a part. A component by itself can not be a computer.
(b) Atanasoff's ABC was NOT a computer in any sense. It's just like a PCS (Puch Card System). If you say ABC is a computer, you have to say the IBM's old PCS is also a computer.
(c)If this book discusses the "Who invent a computer", Author should not ignore the detailes of Neumann's "1st Draft" which you will find nothing about the stroed program concept except very strange one sentence. This shows that Neumann's level of understanding of "stored program", then, was very poor. If he understands the importance as we talk now, he will assign more space to explane the meaning of stored program.
(d)Author also should not ignore "the Moore School summer seminar" held in July-August,1946 where EDVAC's circuit diagrams,then, were shown. The diagrams shows the readyness of the stored program computer at Moore School. It's much more important than "the preliminary discussion" by Burks, Goldstine and Neumann. Also Author have to discuss Babbage if invention of computer is concerned.
(e)Therefore author's approach of one sided narrow and heavy use of the testimonies does not lead us to a productive, fair and historical engineering judgement. Auther just looking at components that never reaches to the system. It is clear that the title of the book is not appropriate under the long range historiacl perspective.
John Mauchly and Pres Eckert are the great inventors of the computer as an integrated system entity. We, human being, can proud of them regardless of some confusions in a patent testimony. Also perhaps we recognize John Atanasoff as the great inventor of the regenerative component.

Considering author's previous book titled "The first electronic computer", it sound like broken audio record which keeps looping and making meanigless noise which makes people confusions.

Rating:
Summary: Meticulous computer history
Review: Alice Burks has written a detailed and comprehensive account of the historic trial that presented the true origins of the electronic digital computer. Her book contains a fascinating depth of detail, and should satisfy anyone's curiosity as to why the computer is now in the public domain. This is must reading for anyone interested in computer history. She is a meticulous scholar. I knew Dr. Atanasoff, and was present at a few
of the events depicted in her book, and I can attest to her accurate portrayal of them.
For further information, I highly recommend "Atanasoff: Forgotten Father of the Computer", by Clark Mollenhoff.

Rating:
Summary: The Lady Doth Protest Too Much
Review: Although the book is carefully researched, the author still does not understand that historians' criteria when making their judgements are not those that the legal profession relies on. She repeats lengthy passages of Mauchly's testimony, which in her view are supposed to show us how duplicitous he was, but to me it seemed like a case of a poor old man being browbeaten and manipulated by a shrewd, high-priced, and unprincipled lawyer. Think of the movie "The Caine Mutiny," where the captain, played by Humphrey Bogart, is humiliated by relentless questioning from the lawyer, played by Jose Ferrer. Mauchly was not a criminal and did not deserve to be treated that way.

Rating:
Summary: Wake up Amazon!
Review: Amazon should remove "reviews" based on personal animosity rather than on the merits of the book under review. As for me, I found this book to be well-written and enlightening, adding to the search for truth about the early history of the electronic computer. We all owe a debt of gratitude to John Atanasoff for his vision in helping to bring about the digital age.

Rating:
Summary: Arthur Burks responds to the second Bartik review
Review: Arthur Burks responds to the second Bartik review

This is a response to Jean Bartik's second Customer Review of my wife Alice's new book, Who Invented the Computer? The Legal Battle that Changed Computing History. I have chosen to write at this time because, in both this and Jean's earlier review (to which Alice responded), I am the object of a major charge impugning my integrity.

Jean Bartik's second review has the challenging title, "Answer this." It starts by (again) questioning Judge Larson's impartiality in the ENIAC patent trial: "Why," it asks, "did he have Honeywell's main consultant, Paul Winsor, as the court computer expert?" The answer is that Winsor did not serve as a court computer expert, but was an expert witness for plaintiff Honeywell. I have consulted Charles Call, a chief attorney for the Honeywell side, and he assures me that such was the case. He explained that there are two kinds of witnesses at trial, as called by each of the two opposing sides. Fact witnesses testify about their own roles and experiences relevant to trial issues. Expert witnesses interpret evidence in accord with their expertise. There is nothing improper, or even dubious, in hearing from witnesses on either side of a dispute, whether fact or expert, in a system that encompasses direct examination, cross-examination, re-direct, and re-cross. Paul Winsor was subjected to examination by both Honeywell and defendant Sperry Rand attorneys.

Prior to the trial, Judge Larson, to his credit, did have tutoring on the technical aspects of the case he was about to try, but neither Winsor nor any other expert witness served in that capacity. As to Larson's conduct of the trial, the official transcript reveals a highly competent and attentive judge who was equally strict with both the Honeywell and the Sperry Rand attorneys during their examination of witnesses and presentation of evidence. His decision in the case is a meticulously drawn document that addresses every concern of those attorneys, complete with cross references sustaining the consistency of his findings. The fact that Sperry Rand chose not to appeal the decision, in a case on which so many millions of dollars rode, is testament to the merit of that decision.

Now, to Jean Bartik's charge against me. As in her first review, she accuses me of having threatened to blackmail John Mauchly into adding my name to the ENIAC patent, except that the earlier review had it the patent application. The source of this allegation is now revealed to be Mauchly's widow, Kay Mauchly (Antonelli), and the alleged threat is that I would testify in the ENIAC patent trial for Honeywell if Mauchly did not agree to add my name, but for Sperry Rand (here called Univac) if he did agree. I herewith declare emphatically that I never made such a threat, to Mauchly or anyone else, at the 1967 ACM meeting or anywhere else. Moreover, prior to the trial and at Mauchly's request, I signed affidavits giving facts about progress in the design of the ENIAC that the Sperry attorneys thought would help their case for the Eckert-Mauchly patent.

Jean also claims that "John Mauchly testified at the trial that Burks had tried to bribe/blackmail him for his testimony." I have a complete copy of Mauchly's trial testimony, which Alice and I both studied while writing our 1988 book, and which we have now reviewed again. We find no such testimony by Mauchly, but rather his repeated acknowledgment that yes, Burks (among others) did make substantial contributions to the ENIAC. (This is a case where it would have helped to have the page number of Mauchly's testimony where he is alleged to have made this charge against me.)

Regarding Jean's question on the ultimate utility of John Atanasoff's computer, as distinct from the many basic principles it successfully embodied, Alice's book addresses all of the arguments, pro and con, about the ABC's final state. Jean's further statement that the ABC "was actually 'built' for the trial" seems to be yet another inexplicable contention that no such machine was actually constructed. Her "understanding that when Atanasoff left to go to NOL, the University threw whatever he had built in the basement out in the trash" is also erroneous. Atanasoff left for his wartime assignment to the Naval Ordnance Laboratory in 1942, and Iowa State safeguarded his computer in that basement hallway of the Physics Building for six years before dismantling it. Notably, basic parts from the memory and the arithmetic unit were preserved and were later turned over to the Smithsonian Institution, together with photographs.

I will close by saying that I am sorry my relationship with Jean Bartik has come to this obviously angry and bitter end. Like Jean, both Alice and I take no pleasure in this exercise. And we fervently hope that these unfounded protestations will cease. Alice's book on this early era of electronic computing is fully documented. Any further "reviews" should include their own documentation-some sustainable evidence-and should refrain from ad hominem attacks and idle speculation on motives. Both of us have written on this very important subject, not out of "sanctimonious viciousness," but out of concern for the preservation of an accurate history.

Arthur W. Burks, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Rating:
Summary: Author responds to Bartik review
Review: As the author of Who Invented the Computer? The Legal Battle that Changed Computing History, I wish to defend my book against claims made by Jean J. Bartik in her Customer Review of it. The most troubling is her claim that my husband, Arthur W. Burks,"tried to blackmail Mauchly into putting his name on the ENIAC patent application and failed." This is a terribly serious charge, with no foundation whatever in fact. After the two-accumulator model test of 1944, which convinced the Moore School team that the ENIAC would very probably work as planned, Pres Eckert circulated a letter asking all team members except himself and Mauchly to declare their own inventive contributions, if any, for patent purposes. Arthur did not at that time think he had any such rights, and he signed a statement to that effect. Indeed, he had the highest respect for both Pres Eckert and John Mauchly, and he continued to regard them as the sole inventors of the ENIAC for another twenty or so years. My book clearly bears out these circumstances.

A second groundless claim is Bartik's assertion that John Atanasoff's ABC "was never built," and that Atanasoff "never built any computer." My book has photos of the ABC in its various stages, including its final state in 1942, together with photos of components and circuit diagrams from Atanasoff's detailed description of 1940. In our earlier book, The First Electronic Computer: The Atanasoff Story, Arthur and I needed some sixty-five pages to describe the ABC and its functioning.

A third disturbing aspect of Bartik's review is her attack on Judge Earl Larson for his conduct of the ENIAC patent trial. My book establishes, not only that the Atanasoff-Berry Computer preceded the ENIAC and that inventive features of it were used in the ENIAC (and even more so in the EDVAC), but also that Judge Larson conducted a fair and impartial trial in finding for the ABC's priority and the ENIAC's derivation from it. I quote the courtroom exchanges extensively, and there is simply no instance of the judge's treating Mauchly "shabbily."

One can only ask that Bartik cite her sources and supply quotations for these and the many other claims she has marshaled to discredit my book.

Alice Rowe Burks, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Rating:
Summary: Answer This
Review: If Judge Larson was so impartial, why did he have Honywell's main
consultant, Paul Winsor, as the court computer expert? There were
certainly more capable and expert worthy than Honeywell's consultant.

Did Atanasoff's computer ever produce any computations. In fact, I
understand that when Atanasoff left the University to go to NOL, the
University threw whatever he had built in the basement out in the trash.
It was actually "built" for the trial.

As for Arthur Burks . John Mauchly testified at the trial that Burks
had tried to bribe/blackmail him for his testimony. If he would put
Burks, Sharpless, and Shaw on the ENIAC patent, he would testify for
Univac. If not, he would testify for Honeywell. Needless to say, neither
wanted him as a witness.

I have a copy that Kay Mauchly has written about the incident. It was
when the ACM (Association of Computing Machinery) had its annual meeting
in Washington in 1967. Kay and John had a small suite at a hotel. When
they arrived back at their suite one day, there was a message from
Arthur Burks saying that he wished to speak to John. When he arrived, he
told them that he wanted to talk to John privately. Kay went into the
bedroom while John met with Arthur. John returned to Kay in about 5
minutes in a fury. He said that he wouldn't be blackmailed. Although he
was angry, John was also hurt because he had liked Burks, had roomed
with him when they both took the Moore School Electronics Course before
both became instructors, and had respected him as a logician and a
member of the ENIAC design team.

This gives me no pleasure because I too liked and respected Arthur
Burks. This would never have been written except for your sanctimonious
viciousness.

Jean J. Bartik
Oaklyn , NJ 08107

Rating:
Summary: How about an affadavit?
Review: Kay has signed an affadavit swearing to the truth of her statement about Burkss' night-time visit. How about you Arthur?

You wrote a whole book disparaging Kay, so I assume you'll continue.

Putting stuff in writing doesn't make it so.

Jean J. Bartik
Oaklyn, Nj

Rating:
Summary: Vengeance with a capital V
Review: Since her husband tried to blackmail Mauchly into putting his name on the ENIAC patent application and failed, the Burks Duo have been badmouthing him ever since. I just hope that someone will look over the trial documents and show how only a bought judge would act as Judge Larson did in this trial. Honeywell got the trial moved to Minneapolis where Honeywell is located. They were and maybe still are the largest employer in the state and own it politically. The judge was outrageous. Paul Winsor, a paid consultant to Honeywell, was the court computer expert. One would think the ABC computer, which was never built, was the IBM 360 and Atanasoff a Gene Amdahl. He never built any computer even when given $400,000 to do so. John with Pres Eckert built the ENIAC that ran for 10 years solving problems. Then they went on to design the EDVAC and build the Binac, the first stored program computer, Univac, the first commercial computer and Larc, 25 times faster than any computer of its time. Does anyone honestly believe that they got their ideas from Atanasoff? I don't think he thought so either until Honeywell told him so and offered to pay him $300,000 if they ould get the patent overturned.

Much has een made of John's weak testimony at the trial. He had been in the hospital being treated for his lifelong disease, HHT (Hereditary Hemorrhagic Telangiectasia). It is characterized by causing holes to form in the lungs and lesions in the brain. John was not as alert as he had been when younger. After all, years had passed and John was now an old man. Larson treated him shabbily. Furthermore, he showed the patent office no respect, for it had taken years before granting the patent.

The book fairly reeks of venom and, even glee, at Goldstine's lie that the EDVAC paper by von Neumann was for internal distribution only. Imagine, Goldstine was the Security Oficer and he deliberately broke the law and nobody prosecuted him. Why not? Whatever harmed John was just wonderful.

This book deserves a place in the trash can, but I hope some researcher with more patience and stomach than I will look at the real trial in Minneapolis.

I was a friend, employee and coworker of John Mauchly and a friend for 58 years of Kay Mauchly with whom I worked on the ENIAC as a programmer. John was a brilliant and good man and a superb teacher. Those who knew him will not allow such garbage to dirty him in any way. He was what he was, and Alice Burks can't change that. Jean J. Bartik
Oaklyn, New Jersey 08107

Rating:
Summary: Definitive history of a great technologist
Review: This book renders a wonderful service by telling the story of an inspired mathematical physicist and technologist, John Atanasoff, who made splendid contributions to technological advances in computing. With the advent of World War II, Atanasoff was called away from teaching duties at Iowa State University in order to serve the military research needs of his nation, thus his pioneering binary electronic computer did not become contemporaneously well-known.

Fortunately for the subsequent advance of the computer age, it was studied by John Mauchly, who later incorporated some of Atanasoff's clever ideas into a computer, the ENIAC, built during 1944/45 at the University of Pennsylvania, owing to funding from the Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory (BRL). The ENIAC became highly publicized in early 1946 and thereby served to inspire many subsequent advances in the evolution of computing technologies. In popular understanding, those best known to be associated with the ENIAC, Mauchly and Preston Eckert, became celebrated, the genius of Atanasoff unknown.

This book is based on a careful review of abundant evidence that was assembled for two patent law disputes. The author is profoundly versed in the technical issues. Her unswerving honesty and dedication to sifting facts from fables yields a definitive account of Atanasoff's legacies.