COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	\|\\M1NGB30\M2BASB30\F1\CArthur L. Samuel
C00015 ENDMK
C⊗;
\|\\M1NGB30;\M2BASB30;\F1\CArthur L. Samuel
\F2\C501 Portola Road, Portola Valley, California  94025

\←L\+'100;\→L\←R\-'50;\→R
\←L\-R\/'7;\+R\→.Nov. 23 1977
Dear Anne:

\JI have been reading the Smathers' material with interest.  I have delayed
writing you in the hopes of being able to come up with a solution to the
problem of finding the proper person to write up the story of Mr.
Smathers' contributions.

Frankly, I have come to no conclusion.  The hope that some one at
Stanford, perhaps in the Computer Science Department, would be interested,
seems not to work out.  There is a reason for this which might color your
future attempts.  The people that I know are all associated with computers
and most of these people are much more interested in the modern
developments of computers, which are rapidly getting away from printer
outputs and going to on-line operations using cathode-ray-tube (like in
the TV) output devices.  Also, there is some doubt, and I share in this
doubt, as to the relevance of the Smathers' patent to the development of
business machines and of computers.

As important as Smathers' contribution was with respect to the typewriter
business, I belive that it, never-the-less, seems to have played a minor
role in the actual development and use of computers and even of high-speed
business machine printers.  I say this with some trepidation, as several
of your correspondants, including Mr. Smathers and your son, seemed to
think otherwise.  My reasons for believing this are as follows:

Firstly, as for the use to typewriters as input and output devices to
computers, IBM was actually very late in entering this market and did not
really make much of a splash until it developed the Selectric Typewriter
which does not, in any way, make use of the mechanism covered by the
Smathers patent.  The proportional spacing machanism of the Executive
Typewriter has never been used in connection with computers or business
machines because so much of the output is numerical; one wants columns of
figures to line up, and this is hard to do with proportional spacing.  The
early computers all used punched cards for input and when typewriter-like
inputs were first used, it was the Teletypewriter, developed by a Bell
system subsidiary, that was used, in spite of the fact that this was, and
still is, a very clumsy and slow device as compared with an electric
typewriter.  By now, there are all sorts of quite different typewriter
like devices, most of them electronic as contrasted with electric, and
none of them making use of the Smathers mechanism.

As for the development of computer and business machine printers,- the IBM
company soon found, or already knew, that the speed attainable with the
Smathers' machanism, while more than adequate for typewriter use, that
this speed was quite inadequate for output printers.

In any case, several alternate printer mechanisms were separately
developed.  I say separately, advisedly, since it was Mr. Watson Sr.'s
basic policy to have the Senior Inventors kept completely in the dark as
to what the other Senior Inventors were doing.  As late as 1949, when I
joined IBM, the Senior Inventors in Endicott all had separate suites, with
locked doors to the corridor, not only locked but kept locked during
working hours and with key recorders that made a printed record of the
numbered key used and the time of each entry so that the Inventors would
be warned of any unauthorized entry or of needless traffic in and out of
the Inventor's helpers.

To my knowledge, none of these early printers made use of mechanisms
covered by the Smathers' patent,and neither do the more modern printers.
It is entirely possible that Mr. Watson was none too sure that this was
true or that it might not always be true and that he may have wanted the
Sathers' patent for protection reasons.  I was under the impression,
however, that he wanted to get into the electric typewriter business
directly.  I cannot be dogmatic about this, since my entry into the
company was rather late, and I did not ever discuss this matter with Mr.
Watson or any of his associates.

I did have a fairly good opportunity to get to know the Senior Inventors
who developed printers and to learn of their work.  The compartmentation
philosophy was just beginning to break down in 1949, with Tom Watson Jr.'s
active entry in the business management, and I was one of the few early
people to be allowed free access and knowledge of the activities of all of
the Senior Inventors.  In fact, for a while, I had a desk in Endicutt as
well as my own office in Poughkeepsie, and I spent one day a week in
consulting with the various Senior Inventors regarding the impact that the
development of computers would have on their work.  I am telling you all
of this to give you some idea of the compartmentation that existed
in IBM, which undoubtedly led Mr. Smathers to believe that he was being
kept in the dark about some developments, as indeed he was, but to point
out that the workers on printers were equally in the dark about Smathers'
work.

So you see, computer people are the wrong people to approach as possible
writers of a book or an article about Mr. Smathers' contributions.  I
feel that IBM would also not be interested.

The electric typewriter has been and continues to be a real contribution
to our modern civilization.  To the extent that everything of any
intrinsic value contributes to all other developments, the electric
typewriter has contributed to the rapid development of the modern
computer, but to single it out for especial attention may not be
justified.

One final matter.  While I was not in IBM when the wartime use was made of
typewriters in connection with secret machines for transmitting and
receiving coded messages, I did subsequently get to know something about
these developments and I do not believe that the Smathers' patent was
involved.  It is evident that Mr. Smathers thought otherwise.

I am sorry to have to be so negative about this matter, particularly,
since I knew and admired Fields Smathers.  Perhaps, by being frank, I may
be able to save you from a lot of wasted effort.

I was sorry to learn of your assessment of Bruce Bliven's book.  I knew
Bruce quite well and always respected his writing ability.  It could
be that his heart was not in a commercial blurb and the Royal Co.
dictated what he was to write.  I do not know anything about the other
people that you have considered.

Your idea of writing the Smithsonian may be a good one.  I have
had one rather unsatisfactory contact with them over a history of the
development of computers.  They were all for this a year or so ago and I
spent the better part of two days talking with one of their people, with
much of our conversation tape-recorded, and even gave them some of my early
records.  After interviewing many of the still surviving early workers
they abandoned the entire project.  Now when a computer organization, the
ACM, is trying to revive this effort, many of the people involved are not
at all anxious to spend any more time in going over the same material
again.

So, if the Smithsonian expresses an interest in having one of their people
write something for you, perhaps you should be rather careful to see that
they make a real commitment to carry through on the task.

It seems that I have been rather verbose, but I did want to let you have
the benefit of my thoughts even though they are rather negative.

I do hope that you have better luck with your next attempt.\.

\←L\→S\←R\-L\/'2;\+L\→L
Sincerely,





Arthur L. Samuel

\←S\→L




ALS:pdp10