United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the.

The Industrial reorganization act. Hearings, Ninety-third Congress, first session [-Ninety-fourth Congress, first session], on S. 1167 (Volume pt. 7) online

. (page 122 of 140)
Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on theThe Industrial reorganization act. Hearings, Ninety-third Congress, first session [-Ninety-fourth Congress, first session], on S. 1167 (Volume pt. 7) → online text (page 122 of 140)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


ENIAC machine even though calculational errors may have occurred in some
of the primary and intermediate calculations.

1.1.4.6 Army Ordnance agreed, in 1945, to allow the use of the ENIAC by Los
Alamos Laboratory personnel at the Moore School for the Los Alamos calculations.

1.1.4.7 At or about the time in December. 1945. when the Los Alamos calcula-
tions were placed on the ENIAC machine at the Moore School in Philadelphia, the
machine had passed all component and system tests and was operating quite
satisfactorily. The Los Alamos calculations employed 99 percent of the capacity
of the ENIAC machine.

1.1.4.8 The satisfactory operation of the ENIAC machine was verified during
the Los Alamos calculations by :

.1 repeating a particular production run twice and then verifying that
the results obtained for each repetition were identical ;

.2 stepping the ENIAC through a calculation and checking all answers
after each add time ;

.3 running a test problem between successive runs and checking the
answer obtained to determine that it corresponded to the known answer of the
test problem.

1.1.4.9 After satisfactory operation of the ENIAC machine was verified by
comparing a hand calculated answer to the ENIAC machine answer for selected
calculations, various conditions of the Los Alamos problem were changed to
obtain production runs for which the answer had not been previously hand
calculated.

1.1.4.10 By January, 1946, many production runs for the Los Alamos calcula-
tions were completed. The calculations continued in progress for considerably over
one month.

1.1.4.11 Any difficulties encountered were not with the machine but with the
mathematical nature of the problem and mistakes of the mathematicians who had
designed the problem for the machine.

1.1.4.12 The use of the ENIAC machine by the Los Alamos Laboratory per-
sonnel was not under the control of Eckert and Mauchly, nor under any condition
of secrecy for their private benefit. The Moore School also had no control over the
use of Army Ordnance's ENIAC machine by the Los Alamos personnel.

1.1.4.13 The ENIAC machine was used to perform numerous production runs
for the Los Alamos calculations beginning in December, 1945, and continuing in
January-February, 1946, and the consequences of these calculations were far-
reaching and thoroughly practical.

1.1.4.14 The results of the Los Alamos calculations using the ENIAC machine
were included in three Los Alamos reports which show or state in substance that
without the ENIAC machine, important work on nuclear energy release problems
could not have been done at the time. The Court concurs with Dr. Teller that one
of the rei)orts, in April, 1946, delivered a verdict on the feasibility of. a thermo-
nuclear bomb : difficult, but with hard work and concenti'ated effort, hopeful.

1.1.4.15 The contribution of the ENIAC machine in performing the Los Alamos
calculations was acknowledged on March 18, 1946, by Dr. Norris Bradbury,
Director of the Los Alamos Laboratory, as being of very great value in the work
on the project. The Los Alamos calculations using the ENIAC machine were a

40-927—75 62



5806

substantial effort which successfully and satisfactorily solved specified problems,
and the results were useful and did not lie dormant.

1.1.4.16 The use of the ENIAC machine for the Los Alamos calculations was
a non-experimental public use in this country prior to the critical date of the
claimed invention disclosed in the ENIAC patent, and an absolute statutory bar
to the valid issuance of the ENIAC patent.

1.1.4.17 The Court credits the live testimony of distinguished scientists who
were contemporaneous participants in these events including Drs. Teller, Ulam,
Mark, Metropolis and Frankel of the Los Alamos Laboratory and Dr. Goldstine
of Army Ordnance. The testimony of Eckert and Mauchly did not contradict such
testimony or the contemporaneous circumstances.

1.1.5 Upon completion of the construction of the ENIAC machine by mid-
November, 1945, and commencement of its full-scale operating use by December,
1945, Army Ordnance generated international publicity to show to all the world
the developments in computing which had been proved operational.

1.1.5.1 The general principles of the ENIAC design and the machine's oper-
ational and functional characteristics were unclassified after December 17, 1945.

1.1.5.2 Only certain design details and circuits of the ENIAC remained classi-
fied Confidential after December 17, 1945, and this designation :

.1 was not made for the benefit or protection of Eckert and Mauchly ;
.2 was not made at the request of Eckert and Mauchly ;
.3 but was made by Army Ordnance to protect circuits of the machine
being used by other military departments, including the Army Signal Corps.

1.1.5.3 The security classification of the ENIAC circuits and design details
was not a matter under the control of Eckert and/or Mauchly. After the declassi-
fication in 1945, the design details and circuits of the ENIAC were left confidential
until February, 1947, solely at the discretion of and for the benefit of the Govern-
ment, and not for the commercial business interest and private benefit of Eckert
and Mauchly. '

1.1.5.4 The Army Ordnance international publicity program for the ENIAC
machine was extensive and well planned, and Eckert and ]Mauchly as participants
therein had been warned that the display of the machine would foreclose any of
their private patent rights if not promptly pursued.

1.1.5.5 In January, 1946, formal press releases were prepared by Army Ord-
nance for release immediately following the dedication ceremony which was
scheduled to be held on February 15, 1946. Mauchly's diary entries attest to his
role in personally editing the Army Ordnance press releases to insure specific
recognition of Eckert and him.

1.1.5.6 Eckert and Mauchly cooperated in the preparation and planning of
the efforts of Army Ordnance and the Moore School to achieve saturation pub-
licity for the completion of the ENIAC, including press releases, interviews,
speeches, newsreels, press demonstrations, formal dedication and the Moore
School open house, such as :

.1 Eckert and Mauchly delivered prepared remarks on the utility and
speed of the ENIAC machine to reporters who attended the press demon-
stration ;

.2 Mauchly prepared and delivered a speech to the reporters at the press
demonstration explaining that the ENIAC machine demonstrated that it was
possible to utilize electronic computers to solve many problems never pre-
viously solved ; and

.3 Eckert delivered a speech at the press demonstration and informed
reporters that the ENIAC machine had sounded the death knell to the era
of electro-mechanical computing devices, and that the advent of the ENIAC
machine had made electronic computers a part of the concrete present rather
than a vague promise of the future.

1.1.5.7 The ENIAC machine was operated at the press demonstration on
February 1, 1946, for publicity purposes, and in manner calculated to be impres-
sive through the press to the general public.

1.1.5.8 One of the calculations illustratively demonstrated was the use of the
ENIAC machine to add the number 97,367 to itself 5,000 times, as was visible
on the face of the accumulators. After the 5,000 additions were completed, the
result was checked and it was determined that the ENIAC machine had properly
performed the calculation.

1.1.5.9 As another demonstration calculation, the ENIAC machine multiplier
was used to multiply 13,975 times 13,975 500 times, and the product was checked
and found to have been properly calculated.



5807

1.1.5.10 As another demonstration calculation, the ENIAC machine was used
to produce a table of squares and cubes of the numbers from 1 to 100. The
ENIAC machine functioned properly during the preparation of the table, and
the results were error free.

1.1.5.11 As another demonstration calculation, the ENIAC machine was used
to compute the sines and cosines for 100 different angles, and the table prepared
was punclied on so-called tab cards, printed on paper, and distributed to mem-
bers of the press. The ENIAC machine functioned properly during the preparation
of the table of sines and cosines, and correct results were obtained for each
computation.

1.1.5.12 As another demonstration calculation, the ENIAC machine performed
representative calculations arising out of the Los Alamos Laboratory work. A
printed copy of the results or so-called printout of a number of Los AJamos-type
calculations was prepared and distributed to the attendees at the press demon-
stration. These calculations utilized substantially the full capacity of the ENIAC
machine, and contained no errors attributable to malfunction of the ENIAC
machine.

1.1.5.13 Although the demonstration calculations performed on the ENIAC
machine for the press were not intended by Army Ordnance or the Moore School
to be for the private benefit or on behalf of Eckert and Mauchly, they were in fact
later relied upon by them for that financial purpose. In no event were the cal-
culations performed in order to enable Eckert and Mauchly to complete or
perfect the making of "the invention" embodied in the ENIAC machine.

1.1.5.14 The use of the ENIAC machine in public during the pi'ess demonstration
was not an experimental use, but was a publicity exercise in joint behalf of the
Moore School and Army Ordnance, and was intended to impress the scientific
community and the general public with the capabilities of the machine and the
fact of its completion.

1.1.5.15 The use of the ENIAC machine to perform calculations during the
February 1, 1946, press demonstration was a non-experimental public use of the
claimed invention disclosed in the ENIAC patent, prior to the critical date and
an absolute statutory bar to the valid issuance of the ENIAC patent.

1.1.5.16 The ENIAC machine was filmed in staged operation in February,
1946, for the benefit of newsreel photographers, for publicity purposes, and in a
manner calculated to provide a motion picture demonstration to be shown na-
tionally to the general public.

1.1.5.17 The use of the ENIAC machine for the newsreel photographers was
not an experimental use, but was part of the large-scale international publicity
program calculated to impress the public with the capabilities of the machine
and the fact of its completion.

1.1.5.18 The ENIAC machine was formally dedicated on February 15, 1946, for
publicity purposes, at a ceremony involving preeminent representatives of gov-
ernment, military, university, industrial and scientific establishments, and in a
manner calculated to achieve maximum recognition of and to stimulate interest
in the completed and operating ENIAC machine.

1.1.5.19 As of the date of the dedication and demonstration of the ENIAC ma-
chine at the Moore School on February 15, 1946, the ENIAC machine was repre-
sented to be, and was in fact, completed and successful.

1.1.5.20 During the dedication demonstration of the ENIAC machine, a bal-
listic tra.iectory problem was run as a simple means for impressing observers with
what the machine could do. Although the trajectory data was simplified for the
demonstration, the basic arithmetical operations of adding, subtracting, multi-
plying and dividing which would be done in a complete trajectory problem were
performed. Any variance between the trajectory calculations performed during
the dedication and an actual trajectory occurred as a result of programming simp-
lifications rather than as a result of any operating defects in the ENIAC machine.

1.1.5.21 Although complete ballistic firing tables were not prepared during the
dedication, the demonstration was intended to and did show that such tables
could be prepared by repeating the trajectory calculations as performed with
different input conditions. The data used was real and had been verified before-
hand. The ENIAC machine did not err.

1.1.5.22 None of the calculations performed on the ENIAC machine at the
dedication were performed for the private benefit or on behalf or under the
control of Eckert and Mauchly to enable them to complete or perfect the making
of "the invention" embodied in the ENIAC machine. Instead, their private inter-
est was one of commercial exploitation (see 1.1.5.6 and .13 above).



5808

1.1.5.23 The use of the ENIAC machine in public at the formal dedicatiou
was not an experimental use, but was part of the large-scale publicity program
calculated to impress the public with the capabilities of the machine and the
fact of its completion.

1.1.5.24 The use of the ENIAC machine to perform calculations during the
dedication was a non-experimental public use of the claimed invention disclosed
in the ENIAC patent, prior to the critical date, and an absolute statutory bar to
the valid issuance of the ENIAC patent.

1.1.5.25 The ENIAC machine was publicly exhibited and demonstrated in
operation on February 16, 1946, at an "open house" for the invited entirety of the
Moore School staff and student body. At the open house, the same ballistic
trajectory calculations that were perfoi-med at the dedication were again per-
formed. The ENIAC machine operated satisfactorily at the open house.

1.1.5.26 The use of the ENIAC machine in public at the oijen house was a non-
experimental public use of the claimed invention of the ENIAC patent, prior to
the critical date, and an absolute statutory bar to the valid issuance of the
ENIAC patent.

1.1.5.27 The Court has heard from numerous live witnesses regarding the
international publicity regarding the completion and successful operation of
the ENIAC machine and saw the ENIAC newsreel exhibited during the testimony
of Dr. Goldstein. The Court credits this testimony.

1.1.6 Dr. Douglas R. Hartree, a highly regarded British scientist, used the
completed ENIAC machine in 1946 prior to the critical date to perform complex
and fundamental calculations relating to the performance of airfoils at sui>er-
sonic speeds in air.

1.1.6.1 As early as 1939 Hartree had begun his study of methods for the solution
of equations involved in laminar boundary layers in compressible flow. The equa-
tions are applicable to the field of supersonic aircraft design, as well as to the
design of various projectiles.

1.1.6.2 Hartree's study of the laminar boundary layer in compressible flow
was not a single problem for which a single answer was to be calculated, but was
instead a broad investigation involving numerous computations using the ENIAC
machine, each of which resulted in large groups or families of calculations or
solutions which were to be compiled in the form of tables. The ENIAC patent
states that the primary intended use of the ENIAC machine is to compute such
large families of solutions.

1.1.6.3 Hartree visited the United States in 1945, saw the nearly completed
ENIAC machine, and was furnished copies of the ENIAC progress reports. He
commented on the ENIAC machine in an article published in Nature magazine
in England on April 20, 1946.

1.1.6.4. Because of his knowledge of the ENIAC project gained from viewing
the ENIAC machine in 1945 and the material in the pi'ogress reports, Hartree,
when he arrived in the United States in April, 1946, had already reduced laminar
boundary layer equations to a form suitable for solution by using the ENIAC
machine. Hartree also brought working charts to the United States which de-
scribed liow the ENIAC machine was to be programmed by plug wiring and set
up to perform the calculations required.

1.1.6.5 Prior to his visit to the United States in the spring of 1946, Hartree had
already studied some special cases of the boundary layer equations which are
described as null (or zero) order functions and had hand-calculated five-figure
solutions to some of the families of calculations. The other cases of the study of
the laminar boundary layer in compressible flow are described as the higher
order functions. At the time that Hartree arrived in the United States, he brought
with him the hand calculation.s of the null-order functions of the boundary layer
equations.

1.1.6.6 Mauchly's pre.sent wife, then Kathleen McNulty. was assigned ])y Army
Ordnance to plug in wire on the ENIAC machine according to the programming
charts which Hartree had brought with him to the United States.

1.1.6.7 Hartree began his work on the ENIAC machine by evaluating the null-
order equations. Calculation of the null-order equations using the ENIAC in-
volved the basic operations of adding, multiplying and dividing. The calculation
of the null-order functions on the ENIAC machine required a number of produc-
tion runs, each of which produced results in the form of a stack of punched
cards.

1.1.6.8 Hartree's calculations using the ENIAC machine were complex and
carefully planned, and required the operating capacity of the entire machine.



5809

1.1.6.9 Hartree's use of the ENIAC machine began in April, 1946, and he suc-
cessfully used the machine to perform useful calculations and produce large fam-
ilies of solutions of the null-order functions. Ilartree checked the results by com-
paring solutions obtained from the ENIAC machine Avith corresponding five-
figure solutions which had been hand-calculated by him prior to his arrival in
the United Estates. Hartree completed his evaluation of the null-order functions
prior to the critical date for the ENIAC patent application. Completion of these
null-order functions was a substantial independent portion of Hartree's intended
complete study of the laminar boundary layer in compressible flow. Also prior
to the critical date for the ENIAC patent application, Ilartree had successfully
used the EXIAC machine to provide useful answ'ers to practical study of the
laminar boundary layer in compressible flow.

1.1.6.10 Hartree's use of the ENIAC machine in 1946 on his own boundary
layer problem was as a consultant employed and paid by Army Ordnance. Har-
tree was neither an agent nor employee of either Eckert, Mauchly or the Moore
School, nor under any obligation of secrecy or otherwise to any thereof.

1.1.6.11 Prior to the critical date, Hartree described to Mauchly in detail the
nature of the calculations that he had performed using the ENIAC machine, and
Mauchly made notes of the discussion. Mauchly testified that he knew at the
time of Hartree's visit that Ilartree was working at the time on a problem in
fluid dynamics which had to do with boundary layers and that this made sense
because ^lauchly had dealt with similar problems in the wind tunnel at the Bu-
reau of Standards in the 1030's. Mauchly testified that he attended a lecture at
the Moore School given by Hartree in which the boundary layer calculations
were described.

1.1.6.12 Mauchly and Eckert, who had by then resigned from the Moore School,
did not evaluate the results of the calculations run by Hartree to learn or to
decide if any design changes to the ENIAC machine were necessary. They were
not authorized to make any changes and did not make any. Although Eckert and
Mauchly were aware of the fact of Hartree's use of the ENIAC machine, they
neither allowed, participated in nor exercised any control over that use or over
any of its consequences.

1.1.6.13 Harti'ee's calculations were of scientific importance and the subject of
significant published papers, upon which Eckert and Mauchly later relied for
their private business advantage. Hartree left the United States to return to
England on .July 20, 1946. In October, 1946, Nature magazine published a further
article by Hartree on the ENIAC machine and his calculations on the laminar
boundary layer problem. The Hartree October Nature article briefly described
the method used for solving the three simultaneous, linear, ordinary, differential
equations which were said by Hartree to arise from the theory of the laminar
boundary layer in a compressible fluid. Eckert and Mauchly's partnership. Elec-
tronic Control Company, later reprinted the article in an advertising brochure
in which it was stated that "the article represented here is based on his [Har-
tree's] first hand experience in using the ENIAC."

1.1.6.14 The use of the ENIAC machine by Hartree was a non-experimental
public use in this country of the claimed invention disclosed in the ENIAC
patent, prior to the critical date, and an absolute statutory bar to the valid
issuance of the ENIAC patent.

1.1.6.15 This Court has considered Hartree's article in the 1948 Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society and the testimony of Dr. Goldstine and
Dr. Clippinger (a former Army Ordnance employee with contemporaneous
knowledge of the I']NIAC machine, and a present Honeywell employee), as
against the confiicting testimony by defendants' counsel Hall, and holds that the
Hartree article is a description of the pre-critical-date work and includes a tabu-
lation of some of the families of solutions which he obtained prior to the critical
date. Clippinger also testified that a recheck of the results on a high speed modern
computer had demonstrated the correctness of Plartree's result. The Court has
considered and credits the testimony of Dr. Clippinger to the effect that the
Hartree article indicates that the ENIAC machine gave Hartree correct results.

1.1.7 The use of the ENIAC machine by Army Ordnance after December 1,
1945 and prior to the critical date, involved no question of whether the machine
worked or how it could be improved by Eckert and Mauchly as claimant inventors
for their own private advantage, but was instead a program of production opera-
tion under the sole control of Army Ordnance entirely for governmental uses,
purpo.ses and benefits.



5810

1.1.7.1 Beginnine: with the Los Alamos ealcxilatioiis in December, 1945. and
extending to the ENIAC patent critical date, the ENIAC machine entered a
period of constant practical use under the control of Army Ordnance.

1.1.7.2 In addition to the public use of the ENIAC machine for the Los
Alamos calculations and the Hartree problem, there are other uses which
cumulatively confirm the public use of the ENIAC machine, prior to the
critical date.

1.1.7.3 None of the specific instances of ENIAC machine operation between
December 10, 194.5. and the critical date, comprising, in sum, a history of constant
practical use of the ENIAC machine by Army Ordnance, were carried out under
the control of, or in any way for the private benefit of, Eckert and Mauchly,
or under any obligation of secrecy to Eckert and Mauchly.

1.1.7.4 None of these other examples of the use of the ENIAC machine were
carried out for the purpose of completing or perfecting the making of "the
invention" of Eckert and Mauchly embodied in the ENIAC machine.

1.1.7.5 After the Los Alamos calculations, the ENIAC was in more or less
continuous use being set up for or in actual work in solving problems. All so-called
testing, de-bugging and troubleshooting was normal operation and continued
throughout the useful life of the ENIAC machine.

1.1.7.6 When Eckert's connection with the ENIAC project was terminated in
March of 1946, the machine had been completed and running for some time and
was in use by Army Ordnance, and Eckert so testified in 1954. At least by January,
1946, the ENIAC machine was a complete and operable calculating instrument,
and Mauchly so testified in 1954. Neither Eckert nor Mauchly testified to the
contrary before this Court.

1.1.7.7 There were no long periods of maintenance or repair shutdown, and
the general practice was to operate in a continuous schedule and shut down
only when a fault l)ecame apparent. The percentage of hours used for commuting
time was quite high, and Eckert and Mauchly so testified, so that Sperry Rand's
attorney Wobensmith summarized Mauchly's testimony to that effect in 1954.

1.1.7.8 Harry Huskey, of the Moore School staff, operated the ENIAC machine,
from April 15 to April 19, 1946, to generate a table of sines and cosins and
this use was called to the attention of Libman, the Army Ordnance attorney
who prepared and filed the ENIAC patent application for Eckert and Mauchly,
prior to tJiat filing. Eckert and Mauchly did not evaluate the results of Huskey's
calculations to determine whether or not any changes in the ENIAC design were
necessary in the light of the results obtained, nor were any changes ever recom-
mended or made by them or for them.

1.1.7.9 The constant practical use of the ENIAC machine after December 1,
1945, was a non-experimental public use of the claimed invention disclosed
on the ENIAC patent prior to the critical date, and an absolute statutory



Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on theThe Industrial reorganization act. Hearings, Ninety-third Congress, first session [-Ninety-fourth Congress, first session], on S. 1167 (Volume pt. 7) → online text (page 122 of 140)