Milestone-Proposal talk:The Atlas computer and the Invention of Virtual Memory: Difference between revisions

From IEEE Milestones Wiki
Line 61: Line 61:


The inclusion of Tom Kilburn FRS after the citation is fully justified. He ranks alongside Alan Turing FRS and Maurice Wilkes FRS. These were the only three computer pioneers in their generation to be elected to the Royal Society.
The inclusion of Tom Kilburn FRS after the citation is fully justified. He ranks alongside Alan Turing FRS and Maurice Wilkes FRS. These were the only three computer pioneers in their generation to be elected to the Royal Society.
===Re: Assessment by First Reviewer (Prof. Martin Campbell-Kelly) -- [[User:Bberg|Bberg]] ([[User talk:Bberg|talk]]) 08:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)===
I conferred with the 4 authors of this Milestone proposal regarding Prof. Martin Campbell-Kelly's lack of support for the use of the word "invention" for "Virtual Memory" in the proposed title and citation of this Milestone.  They made a few minor changes to the proposal, and also added a reference.
As instructed by Section 5.1.8.1. of the IEEE History Committee Information, as Advocate I "request[ed] that the proposer write a formal response on the ETHW to address these questions and concerns."  In their stead, I am posting their formal response of 2 March 2021 here by way of a PDF of their response:
[[File:Atlas-VM-Milestone-ProposersResponseToCampbell-Kelly.pdf|Atlas-VM-Milestone-ProposersResponseToCampbell-Kelly.pdf]]
The following is the text from this PDF:
Proposers' response to a portion of Professor Campbell-Kelly's expert review.
We appreciate the efforts made by both experts in carefully reviewing our application for this milestone award and we welcome their views, which have helped us to refine our proposal. We appreciate Professor Campbell-Kelly’s conclusion that there is a compelling case for the milestone and his statement that the inclusion of Tom Kilburn’s name is justified but we take issue with his assertion that virtual memory does not merit the description “invention”. Accordingly we take this opportunity to establish that virtual memory was indeed invented by the Manchester team for the Atlas computer. We strongly believe that the achievements of inventors should be fully acknowledged in the historical record and we ask that the wording of the citation fully recognises this.
Professor Campbell-Kelly writes that ''“The fact that other developers knew and cited the Atlas does not establish that they would not have arrived at the same end without the precedent of Atlas.”'' It is a well-established principle of academic writing that the original source of an idea should be cited wherever possible. Taken on its own the fact that Atlas was cited by other authors at the time indicates that there was no prior published work, that the concept was not commonly understood prior to the invention, and that the authors attributed their understanding of the concept to the publications of the Atlas team. In our proposal we discuss the fact that the designers of four commercial computers specifically credit their virtual memory designs to the Atlas (IBM, DEC, CDC and ICL) as well as its use in the Multics operating system in 1965. Professor Campbell-Kelly provides no evidence that there was prior knowledge or understanding of virtual memory before its publication nor any evidence that others would readily have arrived at the same conclusion.
The proposal for the Milestone discusses the patents that were awarded for the Atlas computer at some length and on that basis we assert that we have indeed established that virtual memory was invented by the Atlas team. Three of the patents that were awarded describe the essential components of the memory integration system invented by Kilburn that later became known (c. 1965) as virtual memory. The [https://www.gov.uk/patent-your-invention UK Patent Office guidelines] state:
''To be granted a patent, your invention must be all of the following:''<br>
''• something that can be made or used''<br>
''• new''<br>
''• inventive - not just a simple modification to something that already exists''<br>
Thus it is clear that patents are awarded for inventions, a commonly understood principle of patents. If Professor Campbell-Kelly’s assertion that ''“virtual memory is a foundation technology for which there is no single inventor.”'' were correct then a patent would not have been awarded as the application would have failed on bullet points 2 and 3.
The direct relationship between patentability and invention is widely understood, for example [https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_i_1.htm the European Patent Office description of requirements for patentability] is:
''There are four basic requirements for patentability:''<br>
''Art. 52(1)''<br>
''(i) there must be an "invention", belonging to any field of technology (see G II);''<br>
''(ii) the invention must be "susceptible of industrial application" (see G III);''<br>
''(iii) the invention must be "new" (see G IV to VI); and''<br>
''(iv) the invention must involve an "inventive step" (see G VII).''<br>
All four of the EPO requirements for patentability are founded upon invention. Whilst the EPO was not involved in the granting of patents for virtual memory, this example is provided to demonstrate broader acceptance of the fundamental relationship between patents and invention. 
We therefore believe that the award of patents in itself defines the patented concept to be an invention.
As described in the proposal the NRDC took legal action against ICL for breach of patents regarding ICL’s use of virtual memory in the ICL2900 series computers. ICL contested the case on the grounds that the specific implementation that they had used was not identical to the specific implementation described in the patent. The University’s defence (via NRDC) was that the patent described the general principle and that the detailed description presented in the patent was just an example. ICL conceded this point and paid the University a substantial licence fee (£80k) for their use of virtual memory. If the patents could have been undermined by identifying prior art then ICL would have done so. The resolution of the case in favour of the inventors shows that the patents were sound.
We believe that the patents and their successful defence sufficiently disprove the assertion that virtual memory was not an invention but for completeness we also consider the following:<br>
1. ''“The fact that other developers knew and cited the Atlas does not establish that they would not have arrived at the same end without the precedent of Atlas”''<br>
If this approach were taken then any invention could be deemed unworthy of the description “invention” by the same argument and nothing could be said to have been invented. The onus is upon the author to demonstrate via prior art that the invention was obvious and Professor Campbell-Kelly has not done so.
2. Professor Campbell-Kelly asserts that virtual memory cannot be said to have been “invented” by the Manchester team, rather it should be described as a “demonstration”. Various dictionary definitions of “invention” are given below:<br>
a) "Create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of.<br>
''‘he invented an improved form of the steam engine’''" (OED)<br>
b) "to design and/or create something that has never been made before:<br>
''‘The first safety razor was invented by company founder King C. Gillette in 1903’''." (Cambridge dictionary)<br>
c) "to create or produce for the first time - Thomas Edison invented the light bulb." (Miriam Webster)<br>
We believe that the invention of virtual memory by the Manchester team meets or exceeds all of these definitions and that therefore it is correct to describe it as their invention.
Rod Muttam/Roland Ibbett/Simon Lavington/Jim Miles – 2nd March 2021

Revision as of 08:30, 8 March 2021

7th February 2021 update -- Rmuttram (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal revised following discussions between proposal team and the Advocate to include a strong justification for the inclusion of Tom Kilburn's name on the Milestone Plaque and additional references.

Citation updated -- Rmuttram (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Following discussion with the Advocate and amongst the team the citation has been updated to include University 'of Manchester' to facilitate future search effectiveness.

Minor restructuring -- Rmuttram (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Tom Kilburn's IEEE awards moved up to the name justification section. Other minor edits.

Structural amendments for clarity -- Rmuttram (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Photographs and diagram now embedded in text, Quotations indented and italicised. A few minor textual amendments.

Minor edits -- Rmuttram (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Small changes and additions as a result of dialogue with the Advocate and Experts.

Minor edits -- Rmuttram (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

One additional reference added. Text re multics updated. Other minor textual amendments.

Assessment by First Reviewer (Prof. Martin Campbell-Kelly) -- Bberg (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

As Advocate for the Atlas/Virtual Memory Milestone proposal, I solicited an expert review by Martin Campbell-Kelly, who is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Warwick, who has specialised in the history of computing, and who has also served on the editorial board of the IEEE Annals of the History of Computing journal.

A PDF of Prof. Campbell-Kelly's 22 February 2021 review of the proposal is at

File:Atlas-VM Milestone-ExpertReview(Martin Campbell-Kelly).pdf

The following is the text from this PDF:

Milestone-Proposal:The Atlas Computer and the Invention of Virtual Memory

I have read the submission from Professor Muttram and others. I find the written arguments to be fair and truthful. However, the evidence presented does not establish the claim for the “invention” of virtual memory. Virtual memory is a foundation technology for which there is no single inventor. The fact that other developers knew and cited the Atlas does not establish that they would not have arrived at the same end without the precedent of Atlas.

Hence, the title of the proposed milestone
     “The Atlas Computer and the Invention of Virtual Memory 1957-1962”
is too strong a claim. I would advise something like:
     “The Atlas Computer and the First Demonstration of Virtual Memory 1957-1962”
or
     “The Atlas Computer and the One Level Store, the First Demonstration of Virtual Memory 1957-1962”

Two examples reinforce this argument.

Example 1

According to Knuth and Trabb Pardo’s “Early Development of Programming Languages” (1976), Alec Glennie developed the first programming language for a stored program computer at Manchester University in 1952. It would therefore be fair to claim that “Glennie developed the first programming language 1952”, but it would be an over-claim to say that “Glennie invented programming languages 1952”.

Example 2

There are in the UK three plaques celebrating John Logie Baird who invented an early form of television, in fact called the televisor. None of the plaques claim that he “invented” television. Here are the inscriptions:

     John Logie Baird 1888-1946 Television pioneer lived here
     In 1926 in this house John Logie Baird 1888-1946 First Demonstrated Television
     John Logie Baird 1888-1946 Inventor of the Worlds First Working Television System

I conclude by stating that the proposers have made a compelling case for this milestone. I am only suggesting a modification of the wording.

The inclusion of Tom Kilburn FRS after the citation is fully justified. He ranks alongside Alan Turing FRS and Maurice Wilkes FRS. These were the only three computer pioneers in their generation to be elected to the Royal Society.

Re: Assessment by First Reviewer (Prof. Martin Campbell-Kelly) -- Bberg (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I conferred with the 4 authors of this Milestone proposal regarding Prof. Martin Campbell-Kelly's lack of support for the use of the word "invention" for "Virtual Memory" in the proposed title and citation of this Milestone. They made a few minor changes to the proposal, and also added a reference.

As instructed by Section 5.1.8.1. of the IEEE History Committee Information, as Advocate I "request[ed] that the proposer write a formal response on the ETHW to address these questions and concerns." In their stead, I am posting their formal response of 2 March 2021 here by way of a PDF of their response:

File:Atlas-VM-Milestone-ProposersResponseToCampbell-Kelly.pdf

The following is the text from this PDF:

Proposers' response to a portion of Professor Campbell-Kelly's expert review.

We appreciate the efforts made by both experts in carefully reviewing our application for this milestone award and we welcome their views, which have helped us to refine our proposal. We appreciate Professor Campbell-Kelly’s conclusion that there is a compelling case for the milestone and his statement that the inclusion of Tom Kilburn’s name is justified but we take issue with his assertion that virtual memory does not merit the description “invention”. Accordingly we take this opportunity to establish that virtual memory was indeed invented by the Manchester team for the Atlas computer. We strongly believe that the achievements of inventors should be fully acknowledged in the historical record and we ask that the wording of the citation fully recognises this.

Professor Campbell-Kelly writes that “The fact that other developers knew and cited the Atlas does not establish that they would not have arrived at the same end without the precedent of Atlas.” It is a well-established principle of academic writing that the original source of an idea should be cited wherever possible. Taken on its own the fact that Atlas was cited by other authors at the time indicates that there was no prior published work, that the concept was not commonly understood prior to the invention, and that the authors attributed their understanding of the concept to the publications of the Atlas team. In our proposal we discuss the fact that the designers of four commercial computers specifically credit their virtual memory designs to the Atlas (IBM, DEC, CDC and ICL) as well as its use in the Multics operating system in 1965. Professor Campbell-Kelly provides no evidence that there was prior knowledge or understanding of virtual memory before its publication nor any evidence that others would readily have arrived at the same conclusion.

The proposal for the Milestone discusses the patents that were awarded for the Atlas computer at some length and on that basis we assert that we have indeed established that virtual memory was invented by the Atlas team. Three of the patents that were awarded describe the essential components of the memory integration system invented by Kilburn that later became known (c. 1965) as virtual memory. The UK Patent Office guidelines state:

To be granted a patent, your invention must be all of the following:
• something that can be made or used
• new
• inventive - not just a simple modification to something that already exists

Thus it is clear that patents are awarded for inventions, a commonly understood principle of patents. If Professor Campbell-Kelly’s assertion that “virtual memory is a foundation technology for which there is no single inventor.” were correct then a patent would not have been awarded as the application would have failed on bullet points 2 and 3.

The direct relationship between patentability and invention is widely understood, for example the European Patent Office description of requirements for patentability is:

There are four basic requirements for patentability:
Art. 52(1)
(i) there must be an "invention", belonging to any field of technology (see G II);
(ii) the invention must be "susceptible of industrial application" (see G III);
(iii) the invention must be "new" (see G IV to VI); and
(iv) the invention must involve an "inventive step" (see G VII).

All four of the EPO requirements for patentability are founded upon invention. Whilst the EPO was not involved in the granting of patents for virtual memory, this example is provided to demonstrate broader acceptance of the fundamental relationship between patents and invention.

We therefore believe that the award of patents in itself defines the patented concept to be an invention.

As described in the proposal the NRDC took legal action against ICL for breach of patents regarding ICL’s use of virtual memory in the ICL2900 series computers. ICL contested the case on the grounds that the specific implementation that they had used was not identical to the specific implementation described in the patent. The University’s defence (via NRDC) was that the patent described the general principle and that the detailed description presented in the patent was just an example. ICL conceded this point and paid the University a substantial licence fee (£80k) for their use of virtual memory. If the patents could have been undermined by identifying prior art then ICL would have done so. The resolution of the case in favour of the inventors shows that the patents were sound.

We believe that the patents and their successful defence sufficiently disprove the assertion that virtual memory was not an invention but for completeness we also consider the following:
1. “The fact that other developers knew and cited the Atlas does not establish that they would not have arrived at the same end without the precedent of Atlas”
If this approach were taken then any invention could be deemed unworthy of the description “invention” by the same argument and nothing could be said to have been invented. The onus is upon the author to demonstrate via prior art that the invention was obvious and Professor Campbell-Kelly has not done so.

2. Professor Campbell-Kelly asserts that virtual memory cannot be said to have been “invented” by the Manchester team, rather it should be described as a “demonstration”. Various dictionary definitions of “invention” are given below:
a) "Create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of.
‘he invented an improved form of the steam engine’" (OED)
b) "to design and/or create something that has never been made before:
‘The first safety razor was invented by company founder King C. Gillette in 1903’." (Cambridge dictionary)
c) "to create or produce for the first time - Thomas Edison invented the light bulb." (Miriam Webster)

We believe that the invention of virtual memory by the Manchester team meets or exceeds all of these definitions and that therefore it is correct to describe it as their invention.

Rod Muttam/Roland Ibbett/Simon Lavington/Jim Miles – 2nd March 2021