Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

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

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

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.

This is a review from Japan.
There are many books on the history of early computers, but Alice Burks' new book is by far the most comprehensive in its scope and detailed in its content; it covers (Atanasoff's) ABC machine, ENIAC, EDVAC and other related machines and ideas. The author goes through the ENIAC trial transcript and other records, and her claims are constructed on that evidence, not on her own prejudice or preferences. She is fair. For instance, as regards EDVAC priority, she fully appreciates Eckert's crucial contribution and accuses von Neumann's unfairness, whereas she also points out von Neumann's own contributions. She also states clearly why she disagrees with other historians' views. Whether or not you like her conclusions, this book is a "must" for anyone interested in the history of computing.

Surprisingly, this book is not only an authoritative summary of the invention of the Atanasoff-Berry Computer and the ENIAC, but is extremely engaging at the same time. Despite the title's assumed warning of a dry legal story, Mrs. Burks' work is a very detailed and indeed very human summary of early computer history and the legal battle that resulted. This book should be required reading for anyone serious about learning the history of digital computers.

I liked this book. It is factual and should be read by anyone who wants a good account of the court case. The book is divided into three sections. If you only want to know about the court case, read the first section. If you want a somewhat relentless tome of continual struggles by the author thereafter to uphold the decision of that case (and, it feels for some reason, to continually discredit Mauchly), read the next two sections.

While the material is factual, and the arguments sound, it does feel that the author has a personal involvement and her personal opinion overshadows the book a bit. On the one hand, it seems that she is fighting for what she (and the judge) believes to be the truth and she is a champion for truth and proper recognition. But I wonder why she bothers, given the overwhelming tendencies against her. And I wonder why she is alone in this. She cites very little evidence of others who agree with her cause or who are willing to take up the fight as she does. Is she really alone in this? Why? Where was Atanasoff to help her during the critical years?

I am left wondering if the author is somehow motivated by the overwhelming public ignorance of what was decided in court and feels a real desire to support the underdog (Atanasoff who, it seems, was unable or uninterested to fight for this right himself). Or if the author is simply anti-Mauchly. One way or the other, I wonder if she is a bit blinded by her bias.

That said, she writes well and her material is certainly interesting. A recommended read. Read it and form your own conclusion about "Who invented the computer?"

The ABC is technically the first computer because a judge said so.

In a nutshell, the Atanasoff-Berry Computer was nowhere near powerful enough to even be mentioned in the same sentence as the ENIAC, which performed sophisticated calculations for the US military for years, before becoming the cornerstone of the UNISYS corporation.

Maybe the people who developed the bicycle should be credited with inventing the automobile.

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.

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.

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.