Honeywell Inc.

The Multics operating system was developed at MIT's Project MAC in cooperation with Bell Laboratories and General Electric beginning in 1964. It was written in PL/I, a high level programming language, and designed to adapt to future needs. When Honeywell took over General Electric's computer section it marketed Multics as a commercial product.

From the description of Multics records, 1965-1982. (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis). WorldCat record id: 63295362

From the guide to the Honeywell, Inc., MULTICS records, 1965-1982, (University of Minnesota Libraries. Charles Babbage Institute. [cbi])

The American Standards Association (ASA), later the American National Standards Institute, recognized the Business Equipment Manufacturers Association (BEMA) as the sponsor for standardization work in data processing. In 1960 BEMA formed a data processing group of sponsoring companies including Honeywell. X3, an ASA Sectional Committee, was the standards group for computers and information processing. Honeywell was particularly involved in the controversy over ASCII magnetic tape standards. By 1963, Theodore R. Bousquet had become Honeywell's representative to X3.2. In 1964 it became Honeywell's turn to act as secretary for this subcommittee, and Bousquet took this duty as secretary pro tem. Bousquet later served as Honeywell's alternate.

From the description of X3.2 Standards Subcommittee Records, 1961-1969. (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis). WorldCat record id: 63282934

In 1967 Honeywell filed suit against Sperry Rand and its subsidiary, Illinois Scientific Developments, Inc., in U.S. District Court (Minnesota District, 4th Div., No. 4-67-Civ. 138) to challenge the defendant's patent rights involving the basic design of the electronic digital computer. The trial began in Minneapolis under Judge Earl Larson and focused on the work of John Mauchly, J. Presper Eckert and other engineers of the ENIAC computer, as well as John V. Atanasoff and Clifford E. Berry, who developed a prototype computer at Iowa State University prior to the completion of ENIAC.

In 1973 the court ruled Sperry Rand's patent invalid and concluded that the invention of the ENIAC was derived from Atanasoff's work. Damages were not awarded because the court found the defendants innocent of willful intent to defraud.

From the description of Honeywell vs. Sperry Rand records, 1864-1973 (1925-1973). (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis). WorldCat record id: 63287864

The Honeywell-Sperry Rand suit grew out of the ENIAC patent, which covered basic patents relating to the design of electronic digital computers. After the patent was granted to the Sperry Rand Corporation in 1964, the corporation demanded royalties from all major participants in the computer industry. Honeywell refused to cooperate, so Sperry Rand then filed a patent infringement suit against Honeywell in 1967. Honeywell responded in the same year with an antitrust suit charging that the Sperry Rand-IBM cross-licensing agreement was a conspiracy to monopolize the computer industry, and also that the ENIAC patent was fraudulently procured and invalid. Honeywell filed suit against Sperry Rand and its subsidiary, Illinois Scientific Instruments, Inc., in U.S. District Court (Minnesota District, 4th Div., No. 4-67-Civ. 138).

The ENIAC patents were filed in 1947 by John W. Mauchly and J. Presper Eckert, arising from the work conducted at the Moore School of Electrical Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania. In 1946, Eckert and Mauchly left the Moore School and formed their own commercial computer enterprise, the Electronic Control Company, which was later incorporated as the Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation. In 1950 Remington Rand acquired Eckert-Mauchly. The rights to the ENIAC patent eventually passed to Sperry Rand as a result of a merger of the Sperry Corporation and Remington Rand in 1955.

Following extensive discovery procedures the case went to trial in June 1971. Over 32,000 exhibits, some of several hundred pages each, were introduced as evidence. The trial transcript was over 20,000 pages long. In April 1973 Judge Earl Larson found that Honeywell had infringed on the ENIAC patent, but the patent was invalid because the ENIAC had been in public use for over a year before the application was filed. The 1956 agreement between Sperry Rand and IBM was determined to be a "technological merger" and a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because the two companies together had 95 percent of the relevant market at the time. No damages or court costs were awarded to either party of the dispute.

The court also declared that the invention of the ENIAC was derived from the work of John V. Atanasoff at Iowa State University. Atanasoff and a graduate student, Clifford Berry, had developed a prototype electronic computer in 1938, later named the Atanasoff Berry Computer (ABC). John Mauchly visited Atanasoff in 1941 and was aware of the ABC, and Atanasoff believed that the design of the ENIAC was based on the ABC. This meeting became an important issue for the plaintiff during the trial.

From the guide to the Honeywell vs. Sperry Rand records, 1846-1973, (bulk 1925-1973), (University of Minnesota Libraries. Charles Babbage Institute. [cbi])

In 1960, the International Standards Organization (ISO) initiated plans to form a technical committee on computers and information processing, TC 97. At the first meeting of this committee six working groups were set up:

In the United States, the American Standards Association (ASA) was charged with responsibility to represent American positions on standards. The ASA, in 1966 became the United States of America Standards Institute (USASI), and in 1969 was renamed the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). ANSI recognized the Business Equipment Manufacturers Association (BEMA, later the Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association, CBEMA) as the sponsor for standardization work in data processing. In 1960 BEMA formed a data processing group of sponsoring companies, one of which was Minneapolis-Honeywell. This data processing group formed a Plans and Policies Committee, which in turn formed an Engineering Committee. The Engineering Committee formed the X3 Committee, which was recognized by the ASA as a sectional committee.

At its founding, X3 included ten manufacturers' representatives, eleven general interest members, and ten user group members. Honeywell was represented by R. F. Clippinger. General interest members came from groups such as the Association for Computing Machinery, the Department of Defense, and the American Management Association; user groups represented were such groups such as the Air Transport Association and the American Bankers Association. Various subcommittees were formed, such as:

Task groups within these subcommittees were formed to work on specific problems. Members of task groups were not necessarily members of the parent group.

X3 was charged with developing national standards, submitting them to ISO, and developing a United States position on proposals coming form ISO. X3 strove to achieve consensus on standards. Each company was concerned that new standards did not define their equipment as obsolete, yet also did not want to hinder future developments. Honeywell seems to have been particularly involved in the controversy over ASCII magnetic tape standards.

R. F. Clippinger was Honeywell's first representative on the X3 ASA Sectional Committee. The first Honeywell representatives to the X3 subcommittees were:

By 1963 Theodore R. Bousquet had become Honeywell's representative to X3.2. In 1964 it became Honeywell's turn to act as secretary for this subcommittee, and Bousquet took this duty as secretary pro tem. Richard M. Muise acted as his alternate. By 1968 R. E. Turnberg was Honeywell's representative to X3.2, with Bousquet as alternate.

From the guide to the Honeywell, Inc., X3.2 Standards Subcommittee records, 1961-1969., (University of Minnesota Libraries. Charles Babbage Institute. [cbi])

There are two epochs in the history of computing: before the completion of the Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer (known as the ENIAC), and after. While there are several controversies about the development of the ENIAC and its immediate successors, there is nearly universal agreement on three points: the ENIAC was the watershed project which convinced the world that electronic computing was not merely possible, but practicable; it was a masterpiece of electrical engineering, unprecedented in reliability and computing speed; the two men most responsible for its conceptual and technical success were John Presper Eckert, Jr., and John William Mauchly, both of the Moore School of Electrical Engineering.

The history of computing prior to the ENIAC was long and varied. The desire for a mechanical means of computation was ancient, and had prompted the invention of many devices, from the abacus to the adding machine. These developments culminated in the work of Charles Babbage, whose grandiose, fully mechanical designs had largely been forgotten by the turn of the 20th century, and of Herman Hollerith, whose electromechanical punched-card tabulators came to the rescue of the 1890 Federal Census. Notable later efforts included the creation of the differential or Bush analyzer. Though the Bush analyzer was able to perform many mathematical equations, it was still at its core a mechanical device with an electric drive and thus could not produce the greater precision and accuracy desired by scientists. It was partially in response to this slowdown in the advancement of electrical engineering technology that the ENIAC was developed.

The catalyst that advanced electrical engineering and the computer beyond the differential analyzer and to the ENIAC was the demands of the army during the 1930's and particularly the Second World War. The practical need that the differential analyzer could not solve effectively was the preparation of firing tables-charts that 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 this opportunity to expand research and acquire new computing devices, the Moore School of Electrical Engineering of the University of Pennsylvania sought and obtained a contract to develop a differential analyzer of its own. The inadequacies of these mechanical devices at the Moore School were soon recognized by John W. Mauchly, a physics professor, and J. Presper Eckert, Jr., a graduate student.

Eckert and Mauchly believed the best way to improve computer devices was to make these machines primarily electronic rather than mechanical. Despite skepticism from his colleagues in the field, Mauchly thought that vacuum tubes could be used to accelerate calculations and to increase accuracy. Eckert also believed that not only could vacuum tubes be used but also that the existing tubes could be utilized if operated at low voltages. Sometime after Mauchly discussed their ideas with other faculty members and wrote a memo. In 1942 the liaison between the Army Ordnance and the Moore School, Lt. Herman H. Goldstine, heard of Mauchly's ideals for an electronic computer. Goldstine, who was well acquainted with the shortcomings of the differential analyzer, was greatly interested in this project and suggested that a proposal to the army be written to develop an electronic computer. On April 9th, 1943 the Army granted a contract to the Moore School to build a large general-purpose electronic computer. By end of 1945 the electronic computer developed at the Moore School, known as the ENIAC was operational.

The significance of the ENIAC was soon understood by the many participants in its development who would later vie for recognition and control over the project. The first controversy to arise concerned a paper written in June 1945 by John von Neumann, a mathematician who participated in discussions over the design of the ENIAC. In his paper von Neumann summarized the work of the project without giving any credit to Eckert or Mauchly; thus, presenting to those people in the profession who read the paper that von Neumann was responsible for the project. Patent rights and control over the project were also hotly contested. During an attempt by Irven Travis to restructure the accounting operations and procedures of the Moore School in 1946, Dean Harold Pender wrote a letter to Eckert and Mauchly requiring them to sign a patent release form for all work they have done at the University. He also demanded that they place the interests of the University first rather than their own commercial interests in their work. Because they could not agree to such terms Eckert and Mauchly resigned from the Moore School staff in March of 1946. Though they had left the University and formed their own company, known as the Electronic Control Company, they still encountered problems over the ENIAC.

In 1947 when Eckert and Mauchly began to look into the possibility of taking out a patent on the ENIAC, Army lawyers informed them that the circulation of von Neumann's paper among people in the profession made the ideas from the ENIAC part of the public domain. Eckert and Mauchly, however, did apply for a patent on the ENIAC in June of 1947. Armed with the potential patent rights to the ENIAC and freed from the constraints of the University, they hoped to succeed in forming a successful computer company; their attempts at this, however, failed when they were unable to maintain a dedicated funding source to cover their expenses. Eventually in February of 1950, Eckert and Mauchly were forced to sell their company, by then known as the Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation, and the patent rights to the ENIAC to Remington Rand Corporation. Though the ENIAC patent rights were owned by a large corporation, problems over the validity and rights to the invention continued.

While trying to finalize the patent application for the ENIAC, serious problems regarding the patent rights of Eckert and Mauchly, represented by Sperry Rand Corporation, arose in the 1960's. Sperry Rand was engaged, in the early 1960's, in litigation with Honeywell, Inc., and other companies, over the infringements of computer patents owned by Sperry Rand. By 1964 Sperry Rand was able to secure a stronger position on their claims to the electronic computer by being granted the ENIAC patent. With the patent in hand Sperry Rand, through its subsidiary Illinois Scientific Developments, Inc., notified all other companies in the electronic data processing field, except IBM, that they were infringing upon the rights the ENIAC patent and must pay royalties. Because of their former difficulties with Sperry Rand in the early 1960's and anticipated difficulties from a possible suit to collect royalties, Honeywell filed a suit against Sperry Rand in 1967 on the grounds of antitrust violations and unjustified claims to the electronic computer. The case was heard in the 4th Division of the Minnesota District Court (No. 4-67-Civ. 138).

The trial testimony began on 1 June 1971 in Minneapolis before Judge Earl R. Larson with the firm of Dorsey, Marquart, Windhorst, West and the firm of Holladay and Molinar, Allegretti, Newitt and Witcoff both representing Honeywell Inc. The defendants, Sperry Rand Corporation and Illinois Scientific Developments, Inc., were represented by the firm of Dechert, Price and Rhoads. The plaintiff’s counsel presented its case on a number of points that would show the groundlessness of Sperry Rand’s claims to the exclusive patent rights and control of the electronic data processing field. The main points that they presented were generally confined to five areas, viz: a discussion of the work and developments in the field of electronics at the Moore School of Electrical Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania between 1930 and 1947 as the result of "complex team effort;" a presentation of the state of research in the field of electronic digital computers undertaken at other institutions and companies during the 1930s and early 1940s; a explanation of the attempted domination of the electronic data processing industry by Eckert and Mauchly, and later Sperry Rand Corporation, through numerous patent applications based upon dubious claims, the defects of which were knowingly concealed from the patent office; a demonstration of Sperry Rand’s "pattern of prosecuting patent applications from which they knew no valid patents should issue;" and finally, an exposition of Sperry Rand’s plan to dominate the computer industry through the vigorous assertions of its patents and patent application "portfolio" which it had amassed through cross license agreements with IBM, AT&T, and Western Electric Company, Inc. (both in 1965). The plaintiffs also argued that through its cross-license agreement with IBM in 1956 and settlements with a number of other large computer companies, that Sperry Rand had effectively eliminated any threat of a careful investigation and analysis of the ENIAC patent claims. It was from this position of immense strength, Honeywell contended, that smaller companies would be powerless to fight.

During the course of the trial two major points rose which tested the rights of Eckert and Mauchly to the ENIAC patent and proved fatal to Sperry Rand's claims. The first point was over where the basic ideals used in the ENIAC's design originated. Sperry Rand contented that the ENIAC was solely the invention of Eckert and Mauchly; however, Honeywell stated that Eckert and Mauchly had taken the idea from John Vincent Atanasoff and his assistant Clifford E. Berry. Building upon the basic historical view that all inventions are the result of the work of many people over time, Honeywell capitalized upon a visit Mauchly made in 1941 to Atanasoff. During this visit Atanasoff showed Mauchly a small electronic computer he had developed a few years before. Because there were some similarities in the design and operation of Atanasoff's machine with the ENIAC, Honeywell asserted that Eckert and Mauchly used Atanasoff's ideas for their own machine. The second major point concerned the filing of the patent in 1947. Because von Neumann had written a paper about the design of the ENIAC and circulated it a year before the patent application was filed, it was argued that the ENIAC had become part of the public domain and could not be patented.

On 10 October 1973 Judge Earl R. Larson presented his final ruling in the case. He determined that the ENIAC patent was invalid mainly because of the two points raised during the trial. He concluded that while Eckert and Mauchly may have created the ENIAC, they did not create the basic ideas used in the assembly of their computer. Judge Larson also believed that the antitrust charge was valid. He stated that the 1956 cross-license agreement between IBM and Sperry Rand was a technological merger and "an unreasonable restraint of trade - an attempt by IBM and S[perry] R[and] to strengthen or solidify their monopoly in the E[lectronic] D[ata] P[rocessing] industry." Though ruled as an anti-trust violation, the statute of limitations had run out and the charge had to be dropped. Sperry Rand chose not to contest this decision and the findings of the court became final.

(Historical note prepared by the University of Pennsylvania Archives)

From the guide to the ENIAC Trial exhibits master collection, 1864-1973, (bulk 1938-1971), (University of Minnesota Libraries. Charles Babbage Institute. [cbi])

In 1883 inventor Albert Butz developed the process of automatic temperature control, connecting a thermostat to a spring motor to operate home furnace dampers according to changes in air temperature. In 1885 he filed for his first temperature control patent, and formed the Butz Thermo-Electric Regulator Company. Butz's company was incorporated in 1886. In 1888 he sold his business, which was incorporated as the Consolidated Temperature Controlling Company. The firm was renamed the Electric Thermostat Company in 1892, and the Electric Heat Regulator Company in 1893.

William R. Sweatt arrived in Minneapolis from Fargo, North Dakota, in 1891. He started the Sweatt Manufacturing Company, building wooden wheelbarrows, grocery boxes, and wooden washing machines at a factory in Robbinsdale, Minnesota. Sweatt invested in the Consolidated Temperature Controlling Company at about this time, and was given a seat on its board of directors. In 1893 he was named secretary-treasurer of the firm, and the directors asked him to take over operation of the company. By 1902 Sweatt had bought out the original investors and had secured complete ownership of the firm. The company was renamed Minneapolis Heat Regulator Company in 1912.

Honeywell Heating Specialty Company was established in 1906 at Wabash, Indiana by Mark C. Honeywell, and manufactured water-heating equipment. The firm was reorganized and its name changed to Honeywell Heating Specialties Company in 1916, and it began to produce automatic temperature controls. In 1927 the Minneapolis Heat Regulator Company, then a manufacturer of automatic controls for coal-fired furnaces, and Honeywell Heating Specialties Company, a manufacturer of oil burner controls, merged to form the Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company. The headquarters of the new firm was established in Minneapolis, with W.R. Sweatt chairman of the board and Mark C. Honeywell president. Manufacturing was continued in both Minneapolis and Wabash. The corporate name was changed in 1964 to Honeywell Inc.

Minneapolis-Honeywell became a defense contractor in 1940. Of particular note was its development of an electronic autopilot, which came to be used on all types of U.S. bombers during World War II. It also became a supplier of autopilots and other controls for civilian aircraft, and later was involved in the space program. In 1986 Honeywell increased its involvment in the aerospace industry with its purchase of Sperry Aerospace.

Honeywell entered the computer business via a 1955 joint venture with Raytheon Corp known as Datamatic Corporation. The company's first computer system, the D-1000, weighed 25 tons, took up 6,000 square feet, and cost $1.5 million. A 1970 merger agreement with General Electric Company resulted in the creation of Honeywell Information Systems, Inc., a new computer company combining the computer business of the two parent companies. Honeywell Information Systems manufactured mainframe computers. Honeywell later began to gradually exit the computer business, and by 1991 was completely out of it.

Honeywell Inc. merged with AlliedSignal Inc., of Morris Township, New Jersey, in the Fall of 1999. Headquarters of the combined company was established at Morris Township, and the firm carried the Honeywell name. The new company had operations in 95 countries and had 1998 sales of $8.4 billion. Lawrence A. Bossidy, chairman and CEO of AlliedSignal, became the new company's chairman, and Michael R. Bonsignore, chairman and CEO of Honeywell, was made the new company's CEO.

From the guide to the Corporate records., 1843-1999., (Minnesota Society)