/LMAR=0/XLINE=3/FONT#0=BASL30/FONT#1=BASI30/FONT#2=BASB30/FONT#10=BAXM30/FONT#11=ZERO30/FONT#3=STA200/FONT#4=NGB25
␈↓ ↓H␈↓␈↓βS␈↓∧ Department of Computer Science, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, Stanford, California 94305

␈↓ ↓H␈↓∧Telephone 415 497-4430␈↓ 	dDecember 2, 1983 




␈↓ ↓H␈↓Professor William Shockley
␈↓ ↓H␈↓Electrical Engineering

␈↓ ↓H␈↓Dear Bill:

␈↓ ↓H␈↓        Thanks␈α∞for␈α∞␈↓↓The␈α∞Atanaso≥␈α∞Story␈↓.␈α∞ I␈α∞must␈α∞confess␈α∞that␈α∞I␈α∞found␈α∞it␈α∞quite␈α∞uninformative␈α
and
␈↓ ↓H␈↓unconvincing for the following reasons.

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

␈↓ ↓H␈↓2.␈αI␈αdon't␈αthink␈αlaw␈αcourts␈αare␈αe≥ective␈αways␈αof␈αsettling␈αquestions␈αof␈αscienti≡c␈αpriority,␈αbecause␈αthe
␈↓ ↓H␈↓issues␈α
are␈α∞de≡ned␈α
in␈α∞ways␈α
relevant␈α
to␈α∞the␈α
suit␈α∞in␈α
question.␈α∞ In␈α
this␈α
case␈α∞it␈α
was␈α∞the␈α
validity␈α∞of␈α
a
␈↓ ↓H␈↓claim␈α⊃that␈α⊃Honeywell␈α⊃had␈α⊃infringed␈α⊃certain␈α⊂patents␈α⊃held␈α⊃by␈α⊃Sperry␈α⊃Rand.␈α⊃ Only␈α⊂information
␈↓ ↓H␈↓relevant to this claim could be considered by the judge.

␈↓ ↓H␈↓3.␈αWith␈α
regard␈αto␈α
the␈αissue␈αof␈α
Mauchly's␈αhonesty␈α
relative␈αto␈αAtanaso≥,␈α
I␈αthink␈α
think␈αthe␈αcourt␈α
suit
␈↓ ↓H␈↓is␈α∞a␈α∞particularly␈α∞awkward␈α∞way␈α∞of␈α∞settling␈α∞matters.␈α∞ In␈α∞so␈α∞far␈α∞as␈α∞Mauchly␈α∞were␈α∞to␈α∞maintain␈α∞that
␈↓ ↓H␈↓certain␈α
ideas,␈αwhich␈α
he␈α
heard␈αfrom␈α
Atanaso≥␈α
were␈αobvious␈α
"to␈αone␈α
skilled␈α
in␈αthe␈α
art",␈α
he␈αwould
␈↓ ↓H␈↓jeopardize Sperry Rand's claim against Honeywell.

␈↓ ↓H␈↓        Incidentally,␈αit␈αmust␈αhave␈αbeen␈α
quite␈αa␈αlong␈αshot␈αfrom␈αthe␈α
Sperry␈αRand␈αpoint␈αof␈αview␈αto␈α
try
␈↓ ↓H␈↓to␈α
get␈α
money␈α
from␈α
Honeywell.␈α
 Of␈α
course,␈α
as␈α
in␈α
the␈α
earlier␈α
(successful)␈α
M.I.T.␈α
suit␈α
on␈α
the␈αpatent
␈↓ ↓H␈↓for␈αcore␈αmemory␈αwhere␈αthe␈αdefendant␈αwas␈αSperry␈αRand,␈αthe␈αreal␈αtarget␈αwas␈αIBM.␈α The␈αlegal␈αidea
␈↓ ↓H␈↓is␈α∂to␈α∂pick␈α∞o≥␈α∂a␈α∂small␈α∂fry,␈α∞who␈α∂can␈α∂a≥ord␈α∂less␈α∞money␈α∂for␈α∂lawyers,␈α∂and␈α∞then␈α∂tackle␈α∂the␈α∂big␈α∞guy
␈↓ ↓H␈↓armed with a precedent.

␈↓ ↓H␈↓        Again␈α∂let␈α∞me␈α∂recommend␈α∞the␈α∂journal␈α∂␈↓↓Annals␈α∞of␈α∂the␈α∞History␈α∂of␈α∞Computing␈↓.␈α∂ I␈α∂believe␈α∞the
␈↓ ↓H␈↓question␈α
of␈α
what␈α∞Atanaso≥␈α
did␈α
is␈α
discussed␈α∞in␈α
one␈α
or␈α
more␈α∞articles,␈α
but␈α
I␈α
don't␈α∞remember␈α
what
␈↓ ↓H␈↓opinions were expressed by the one or more authors.


␈↓ ↓H␈↓Best regards,



␈↓ ↓H␈↓John McCarthy
␈↓ ↓H␈↓Professor of Computer Science