Comments on: Who really invented the computer?

By: Stan Sieler

Stan Sieler — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:34:26 +0000

Re: “. If a case with this much at stake could not convince a judge after seven months, then there is little hope for any IP case.”

You’re right … there is little hope for any IP case. I learned that some years ago, as a an expert witness in a number of cases, both in the U.S.A. and Canada. Part of the reason is that nothing in real life is “binary”.

By: zeidman

zeidman — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 07:39:29 +0000

Herbert, ENIAC was also hardwired to do calculations. By your definition, the EDSAC in Cambridge was the first computer in 1949. However, that’s not the definition that computer scientists or historians use for “computer,” but rather that’s the definition of “stored program computer.”

By: Herbert Kanner

Herbert Kanner — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 07:14:17 +0000

Very simply: if it is not programmable, it’s not a computer.

By: G Calcerano

G Calcerano — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:01:44 +0000

Bob, if you are aware of the U Penn archives, then you should be aware of the wealth of information on Mauchly’s pursuits of electronic computation before ever meeting Atanasoff, going back to the mid-1930s. Most of this was NOT presented at the trial, because Sperry lawyers underestimated its value to the case. The trial was all about getting money for Honeywell and CDC, not about truth on any level. If you were to examine the actual records, and not just those that were included in the 1973 trial, you would come to a different conclusion. Larson’s verdict was not appealed because by 1973 it would not have been worth the additional expense to Sperry to have it overturned. This does not mean the findings were anything like “the truth.”

By: steve

steve — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 05:35:13 +0000

There were powerful elements in the US, of which the Judge is only one, who were determined to subvert Mauchly’s patent. Pilfering Mauchly’s ideas began early with the likes of Von Neumann.

Atanasoff is an untrustworthy man. The most important question obviously is this: Atanasoff was determined to patent his device, which is abundantly clear. Why then would he disclose everything to Mauchly as he claims, explaining “everything in detail and answering all his(Mauchly’s) questions”. Ridiculous.

The efforts to show that the ABC worked are suspiciously strenuous and perfect. It’s artificial.

Another important point is that Atanasoff did not understand the ABC because Berry designed and built it.

Mauchly had a very clear vision of what was technically required and how to implement it. He created an entire industry and foresaw the PC revolution. To attribute this to Atanasoff is psychedelic.

By: zeidman

zeidman — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:53:35 +0000

Thanks for writing. Obviously there is a lot of passion among people on this topic. However, your facts are wrong. The ABC was up and running, but was dismantled to make space for other equipment in the lab. It was fully electronic, at least as much as ENIAC that required switchboard plugs to program it. Finally, I think that if the things you say were true (and I’ve heard them all before), wouldn’t Sperry have made that case in court? Or Mauchly? Why did Mauchly lie about his contact with Atanasoff until he was presented with his own letters to Atanasoff in court? Anyway, all of this is documented in several books and, most importantly, the trial transcripts. You can find further information, and confirmation, at the University of Pennsylvania archive, http://www.archives.upenn.edu/faids/upd/eniactrial/eniac.html, as well as many other places on the web. You’ll also find that there were a lot of people who were pretty upset with Eckert and Mauchly for not giving them credit, including several who sued to get their names on the computer patent.

By: G Calcerano

G Calcerano — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:46:17 +0000

Atanasoff supporters always leave out the fact that he never completed his machine; what Mauchly saw was a small piece of it. The ABC was not truly electronic in that it did not utilize electronic speeds, relying on human intervention every step of the way. The ENIAC was a digital machine, not a binary machine like the ABC, and could hardly be said to be any kind of descendent of the ABC. Finally, the ABC was FIRST COMPLETED in the 1970s, when Honeywell paid to have it constructed for the purpose of the trial. Art and Alice Burks seem to carry some kind of grudge against Mauchly and Eckert, possibly stemming from not getting all the credit they sought for their role in construction of the ENIAC. For a better researched look at how ENIAC came to be, read Scott McCartney’s book.