Talk:Honeywell v. Sperry Rand
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
An entry from Honeywell v. Sperry Rand appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 8 August 2006. |
 |
[edit] Article created
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] Computer as human
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)
[edit] "thus putting the patent for the invention of the electronic digital computer..."
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)
