Burks’ history attempts to uncover the critical relationship, and divergent accounts of invention between, two computing pioneers. In 1941, University of Pennsylvania physicist John Mauchly visited physics professor John Atanasoff at Iowa State University to discuss Atanasoff’s current project, thereafter known as the Atanasoff-Berry Computer (ABC). Interestingly, not five years later, Mauchly was acclaimed as the inventor of the Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer (ENIAC). What ideas germinated between Mauchly and Atanasoff became grist for an exhaustive patent trial, and a source of historical controversy. In 1973, Judge Earl L. Larson named Atanasoff as the computer’s inventor. Despite Larson’s decision, credit for inventing the computer often favors Mauchly.

In light of the lengthy Larson trial, Burks asserts two critical points. First, Atanasoff rightly deserves due recognition for inventing the computer among scholars, and, second, there is a popular lack in acknowledging Larson’s verdict (p. 17). It should be noted, however, that Burks is a principal in published debates over computer origins, and her husband, Arthur, was an associate of Mauchly’s on the ENIAC project. Despite a suspicion of favoritism, I admire her even tone; she remains dispassionate throughout the text, despite contentious debate over her work in collaboration with, and as an associate of, her husband. On the other hand, I found Burk’s potential bias troubling, but not for the obvious reason; the Burks possibly favor Atanasoff, precisely because Arthur did know Mauchly well. This point is not addressed.

In any case, Burks exhibits a trial-like presentation, first placing the computer competitors at odds, then testifying, then subsequently offering a closing argument. The trial arrangement is clever, but distracting; academic voices are not incorporated well throughout the work.

Unorthodox distractions mar the work. I am sidetracked by Burks, busy with her trial presentation, arranging countervailing voices (Herman Goldstine, for example, and nemesis Nancy Stern et al., introduced late in her text). Burks is aware, according to a note in her bibliography, that Goldstine published a computer history with Princeton University Press. Goldstine’s history, however, is not noted in her index.

Moreover, Stern’s various works, in particular her From ENIAC to UNIVAC, are still regarded well by historians, which Burks acknowledges. Nonetheless, the historical profession can and does make mistakes, thus a revisionist history would be welcome. Burks, however, does not provide enough evidence to convince historians to disagree with Stern’s conclusions regarding innovation versus invention. Mauchly adapted ideas and rendered them practical, thus, for historians, Mauchly is best viewed as the computer’s key innovator.

Two other academic fields are represented in Burks’ work. Gerald U. Brock and David J. Kuck, an economist and a computer scientist, respectively, both recognize Atanasoff’s priority in computer history. Chapter 7 (of 13 chapters), “Other Voices,” addresses other works on this question. This chapter’s topic should be discussed early, and incorporated throughout the book.

Burks also has a troubling, non-academic way of attributing credit, quoting sources, and following academic convention. She refers at one point (p. 31), in a statement with no footnote or attributed source, to a discussion between Arthur and Mauchly. This is hearsay evidence quoted as fact. At another point (p. 405), she states that a friend told “us” (presumably herself and Arthur) about a Philadelphia presentation favoring Mauchly, a statement with which Burks obviously does not agree. Nonetheless, this third-hand information is assumed to be reliable, and is included. In short, the work suffers from the lack of a meticulous academic editor, who would have pruned these shortcomings to strengthen the book.

If this is not a scholarly history, is it valueless? No. The text correctly identifies Atanasoff as the genuine inventor of the computer, and Burks’ engaging writing style is accessible to a popular audience: those most likely to view Mauchly as the inventor of the computer. The text includes a clever, well done “As It Happened” section, which reads more like a novel, and is a fresh, clarifying approach to a complex history. I also appreciated the extensive quotes from Larson’s decision (p. 146 - 148), which is generally not given serious weight in popular presentations of computer history, a fact the author documents well throughout her work.

Thanks to Burks, the public will read of a scientific community far more divided, disorganized, and contentious than they suspect. The intended audience for this book is a well-versed reader; such readers will benefit greatly from a favorably designed, illustrated, and accurate account of computer history.