Moore School of Electrical Engineering

The catalyst which advanced electrical engineering and the computer beyond the differential analyzer and to the ENIAC was the demands of the Army during the 1930s and particularly the Second World War. The practical need which the differential analyzer could not solve effectively was the preparation of firing tables and charts which showed how to aim artillery accurately. Too many people and too much time were required to prepare these tables. The federal government was willing to fund research undertaken to improve upon the existing technology. Recognizing the opportunity to expand research and to acquire new computing devices, the Moore School sought and obtained a contract to develop a differential analyzer of its own. The inadequacies of these mechanical devices were soon recognized by John W. Mauchly and J. Presper Eckert. Both men believed the best way to improve computer devices was to make them electronic rather than mechanical. Mauchly used vacuum tubes to accelerate calculations and to increase accuracy. Eckert reinforced the notion that these tubes could be used at low voltages.

In 1942 the liaison between the Army Ordnance and the Moore School, Lt. Herman H. Goldstine, heard of Mauchly's ideas for an electronic computer. Goldstine was well acquainted with the shortcomings of the differential analyzer and was greatly interested in this project. He suggested the University write a proposal to develop the electronic computer. On April 9, 1943 the Army awarded the University a contract to build a general purpose computer. By the end of 1945 the ENIAC was operational.

Eckert and Mauchly filed for patent in June of 1947 and formed their own company, the Eckert-Mauchley Computer Corporation; in 1950 they sold their company to Remington Rand Corporation. Patent problems continued for the parent company, Sperry Rand, through the 1960s. In 1967 Honeywell filed suit against Sperry Rand and its subsidiary, Illinois Scientific Developments, Inc. to challenge Sperry Rand's patent rights. The trial focused on the work of Eckert and Mauchly and other engineers as well as John V. Atanasoff and Clifford E. Berry, who developed a prototype computer at Iowa State University prior to the completion of the ENIAC.

In 1973 the court ruled that the Sperry Rand patent was invalid and concluded that the computer derived from Atanasoff's work. The court further found that Mauchly and Eckert were innocent of willful intent to defraud, and as a result no damages were awarded.

From the description of ENIAC Patent Trial Collection, 1864-1973 (bulk 1938-1971). (University of Pennsylvania). WorldCat record id: 122491080