COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source
C00005 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source;
∂CSL Professor William Shockley↓Electrical Engineering∞

Dear Bill:

	Thanks for %2The Atanasoff Story%1.  I must confess that
I found it quite uninformative and unconvincing for the following reasons.

1. It is never stated precisely what invention is at issue.
The major dispute in the literature is about who invented
the concept of stored program.  This seems to be about who
invented electronic computing per se.

2. I don't think law courts are effective ways of settling questions
of scientific priority, because the issues are defined in ways
relevant to the suit in question.  In this case it was the validity
of a claim that Honeywell had infringed certain patents held by
Sperry Rand.  Only information relevant to this claim could be
considered by the judge.

3. With regard to the issue of Mauchly's honesty relative to
Atanasoff, I think think the court suit is a particularly awkward
way of settling matters.  In so far as Mauchly were to maintain that
certain ideas, which he heard from Atanasoff were obvious "to one
skilled in the art", he would jeopardize Sperry Rand's claim against
Honeywell.  

	Incidentally, it must have been quite a long shot from
the Sperry Rand point of view to try to get money from Honeywell.
Of course, as in the earlier (successful) M.I.T. suit on the patent
for core memory where the defendant was Sperry Rand, the real target
was IBM.  The legal idea is to pick off a small fry, who can afford
less money for lawyers, and then tackle the big guy armed with
a precedent.

	Again let me recommend the journal %2Annals of the History
of Computing%1.  I believe the question of what Atanasoff did is
discussed in one or more articles, but I don't remember what opinions
were expressed by the one or more authors.

.reg