>>> ...
>> " Three considerations suggest that he [Bush] was unaware of the detail
>> of Goldberg's work when he [Bush] built his prototype in 1938-40: [. .
>> .] "
>> and makes no conclusion of conscious influence (on Bush by Goldberg).
>> So when you say Bush "stole", and "claimed it as his own", etc., do you have
>> some other reference or is this merely your pejorative accusation and
>> hyperbole?
>>> Bush did not successfully build his machine.
>> (Not the Memex you mention, but, as discussed in the article, he did build
>> the predecessor 'microfilm rapid selector'.)
>
> Yes, my statement was overy harsh.
Maybe relevant here, maybe not, but it's worth keeping in mind that history is
full of things that were "discovered" several times. The name that is
remembered tends to be the name associated with the instance that took hold,
not necessarily the first one. Examples include America, frequency modulation,
telegraphy, and many others.
paul
