On October 19, 1973 Judge Earl R. Larson, as part of his judgement in a patent suit case involving the ENIAC computer, stated:“Eckert and Mauchly did not themselves first invent the ‘automatic electronic digital computer,’ ..., but instead derived that broad subject matter from Dr. John V. Atanasoff, ....” That one small statement has had historians locked in debate for the last 11 years. One side argues that what is correct and necessary in law is not always justics, while the other side points out that Judge Larson had access to many tens of thousands of pages of documents and testimony upon which to base his informed judgement. Several other individuals (for example, John Mauchly Pres Eckert, or John von Newmann) have either claimed the invention of the digital computer or have had others advocating their claim, and these claims have been the subject of several papers and monographs. This paper, however, is the first in which Atanasoff has been given a forum to present to present his own side of the story and to describe how the events that lead up to the trial have altered his life. As such, it is a major event for the community of computer historians.:P The paper starts with a description of how Atanasoff became interested in the subject of automatic computation and the facilities that were available to him at the time. After considering all the potential devices that he could incorporate into his plans, he decided to attempt the construction of a new type of electronic calculating machine. Together with Clifford Berry, a graduate student at the time, he began the basic experiments that were needed to verify his ideas. During the period of 1939:U1941, they succeeded in producing what has since become known as the ABC (Atanasoff:UBerry Computer). The paper includes extensive descriptions of both the actual construction and operating modes of the different machine components.:P The first half of the paper is entirely devoted to the problems, people, and events that occurred during the development of the ABC machine. The last half, although more modern in contents, is equally as fascinating. It describes in some detail the events surrounding the legal proceedings when Sperry:URand decided to sue Control Data Corporation over the patent rights to computer memory and to sue Honeywell over the patent rights associated with the development of the ENIAC. The various dealings with the lawyers and major figures on both sides of the suit make fascinating reading and show, better than any other way, the Machiavellian methods that can be used by both individuals and large corporations when money is at stake.:P This is a fascinating paper, highly recommended to anyone but an absolute must for those whose interests range to the historical side of our subject.