Talk:Honeywell, Inc. v. Sperry Rand Corp.

message: I haven't finished working on this article yet, but as I won't be able to put much effort into it over the next few days, I decided to post this as a start.  The article emphasizes accuracy, detail, and controversy neutrality.  I hope further additions will be as well or better researched--familiarity with primary source materials is encouraged, including the original case depositions, trial transcripts, and exhibits--and will make the article more neutral, not less.  Thanks! Robert K S 08:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, you have indeed added much detail.  I linked the dates not for importance but because linked dates allow personal style sheets to display them in a format of the reader's preference.  Also, Wikilinks normally are used only on the first occurance of a term, or first in a section for very long articles.  --Blainster 20:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and thanks for your interest.  However, your changes have also introduced several errors, including a misunderstanding of the magnetic regenerative memory patent.  You may want to read the source documents--trial transcripts, patent documents, etc.--before contributing unsourced and inaccurate information in the future. Robert K S 21:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I did read the patent before making the change. It covers delay line memory generally including acoustic, electric, and electromechanical, of which the magnetic form referred to is a subset.  Don't you agree?  --Blainster 21:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears you're right!  Apologies!  The actual title of the patent is simply "memory system" but I usually see it referred to as "regenerative."  I'll let others decide the best way to describe it. Robert K S 21:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article created

message: There is a small typo that I do not feel qualified to fix.  Search for Alice Burks.  She was likely not a "computer" at Penn, but more probably a computer technician or programmer? --Xopt
Oops, my bad...she actually was a computer, meaning human computer, and that is the target of the Wikilink.  Interesting choice of wording there... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.139.71.69 (talk • contribs) 09:53, August 8, 2006  (UTC)
::The oldest known use of the word "computer" did apply to humans.  It was a job.  Computers where hired to do astronomical calculations, and such. SlowJog (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Computer as human

message: I reverted this change because it doesn't seem to make sense.  All patents are in the public domain.  It was the invention itself that was put into the public domain; the patent was invalidated. Robert K S 03:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "thus putting ''the patent for'' the invention of the electronic digital computer..."

message: Perhaps the Findings were issued in April 1973, but the Judgement was entered on October 19, so the date in the lede was changed from April to October.  --Blainster (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Decision 

message: Finding 3 rules the 102(f) invalidity, the inventor did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented and 102(a) invalidity, the invention was known or used by the others in this country, of the ENIAC patent. 
In this wikipedia page p. 3.1.2 is taken out of the context of the judge Larson’s decision and announced as “judical fiat” … quote “Finding 3 was the most controversial, as it assigned the invention of the electronic digital computer by judicial fiat to John V. Atanasoff.” This is a very impressive lie. That is how most of the Atanasoff’s lies are created.
In the introduction of his decision, judge Larson states:
 … computers, not computer;
and further:
and further:
In other words, the subject matter, the broad concept is derived from Dr. John V. Atanasoff and ENIAC is 102(f) invalid. However, the ABC is one of the earliest electronic computers, not the earliest. This ruling is not a judical fiat to assign the invention of the electronic digital computer to anyone as some wish to be. Judge Larson is very cautious ruling the derivation because the Patent Office examiners, prior to 1950, referenced two patents to the ENIAC patent (on the last page of the ENIAC patent) – the first one is the patent of Arthur H. Dickinson US 2,402,988 and the second one is the Mumma patent 2,442,428. The Dickinson Patent is filed on May 23, 1941 and in the first line of the patent is written that it is a continuation in part of a patent application Serial No. 314,767 filed January 20, 1940. This is the patent application of the famous IBM patent US 2,580,740 entitled “Accounting Apparatus” for the first electronic digital computer, developed in 1938-1939. This computer is a decimal one, it counts and consists of electromechanical keyboard, completely electronic processor (calculation and control) and electronic output (X-ray display). Following the Robert Mumma (NCR) line (Robert Mumma is a witness on the trial) it is easy to find that the Mumma patent is related to the NCR patent of Joseph Desch US 2,595,045 entitled “Calculating Machine” from March 20, 1940. Robert Mumma is an assistant  of Joseph Desch’s. That is why in the introduction of his decision Judge Larson makes a statement about  “weighed of the … ‘’’earliest automatic electronic digital computers’’’: 
To be able to judge that John Atanasoff invented the first electronic computer judge Larsen has to determine the priority date. There are three contenders Dickinson (IBM), Desch (NCR) and Atanasoff. To resolve the priority date the judge requires properly archived experimental and service log books (see p.1.5.4 the whole point). Atanasoff does not have any log books. Atanasoff submits to the court receipts, report and well crafted by the Honeywell attorneys memories. On the top of that there are two types of priority – constructive and actual and there is a whole procedure to consider. 
The controversy related to the ruling of the derivation does not come from the fact that ABC is neither automatic nor fully electronic i.e. every step is executed by pushing a button on the console and the ABC timing control is using electromechanical contacts located on the timing control drum because for 102(f) to kick in there is no need of dependency. This is explained in p. 3.1.3 of the decision. 
The controversy comes from Atanasoff himself. In his memoirs Calvin Mooers describes the Atanasoff’s management style as “management style, which was so used to rearranging the stated truth”. His whole life is about rearranging the truth – for meddling with the tabulator in 1937 it is IBM’s fault, for not patenting in 1942 it is ISC’ fault nevertheless he compromised the patent (p.3.16), for failing the NOL project it is NOL’s fault because NOL overloaded him (Slater, “Portraits in silicon”). In his report from august 1940, on page 29 the second last paragraph, Atanasoff writes “A test setup of an abacus, asm and converter was made in January, 1940 …” and in front of the court he claims that the tests are commenced in November 1939 and compromises himself. (Burks, p.215-216). In p.3.1.5 judge Larson says: 
This again is not a priority, because there is no date. What the judge says is “Hey Atanasoff why you did not file a patent?” p.31.5 contradicts to p. 2.1.7. where judge Larson explains when a device is ready to be patented – when it is “… completed, reduced to practice, in operative form”. The device is completed when the experiments are over and yet Atanasoff writes that in 1940 the experiments on the breadboard model are still going on. Vebar (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page contains fake information 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Honeywell, Inc. v. Sperry Rand Corp.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908233213/http://accad.osu.edu/~waynec/history/PDFs/ENIACpatentdispute.pdf to http://accad.osu.edu/~waynec/history/PDFs/ENIACpatentdispute.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Wikipedia has changed since its inception, and among those changes is the requirement that assertions be cited to independent reliable sources, supporting each assertion not generally known and each assertion likely to be challenged. And authors should strive to keep their personal views out of articles. This article violates those standards. It is filled with value judgments and personal opinions (perhaps most flagrantly the now-removed claim that the decision was made by "judicial fiat".
This article should be deleted outright, or stripped down to verifiable (and verified) facts. If the later, given this article's age care needs to be taken to avoid use of mirrors of this article and their derivations. Kablammo (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Near-complete absence of specific citations to reliable sources