<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">But wait, there's more: <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/01/05/email-inventor-techdirt/">http://fortune.com/2017/01/05/email-inventor-techdirt/</a></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">FWIW, the newsletter <i>Electronic Mail and Message Systems</i> began in 1977. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Definitely a need for a few articles aimed at different audiences. One possibility is <i>AHA Perspectives</i> for historians, but we should reach the technical and business communities too. Theconversation.com is a good conduit to reach a wide audience too and I'm happy to contact the technology editor if anyone wants to write a piece.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">My challenge is a backlog of deadlines, a situation common to many of us.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> Jonathan</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Jonathan Coopersmith<div>Professor</div><div>Department of History</div><div>Texas A&M University</div><div>College Station, TX 77843-4236</div><div>979.845.7151</div><div>979.862.4314 (fax)</div><div><a href="http://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/author/42" target="_blank">http://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/author/42</a><div style="font-size:12.8px;font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">: </div><div style="font-size:12.8px;font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">latest post is "Coal Comfort. Is Hillary Clinton being 'Al Gored'?" at </div><font color="#1155cc" face="Tahoma"><span style="font-size:13.3333px"><u><a href="http://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/153818" target="_blank">http://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/153818</a></u></span></font></div><div><span style="font-size:9.5pt"><i><br></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size:9.5pt"><i> FAXED. The Rise and Fall of the Fax Machine</i></span><span style="font-size:9.5pt"> (Johns Hopkins University Press) is the co-recipient of the 2016 Business History Conference Hagley Prize for best book in business history. </span><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Guy Fedorkow <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:guy.fedorkow@gmail.com" target="_blank">guy.fedorkow@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Tom,<br>
As I remember from the last round, the disagreement seemed to be
over the definition of "email", wasn't it? I don't think there was
a denial that messages were sent between computer terminals prior to
the plucky young contributor's work, but that only after that point
did the technology truly deserve the appellation "EMAIL", as
allegedly proven by the grant of copyright?<br>
It does seem like there's been a certain fluidity in choosing
whether the argument of the day is based on the name or the
functional characteristics...<br>
But a refutation might want to consider both factors, i.e.,
evidence that the term email was in wide use, and that the claimed
functionality (beyond just sending a message, although I don't
remember what it was) was in use prior to the alleged invention.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
/guy</font></span><span class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="m_6892799172044733743moz-cite-prefix">On 1/5/2017 12:56 PM, Thomas Haigh
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_6892799172044733743WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Thanks
Dave,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The
other advice I have for anyone commenting on this case is to
keep the argument simple.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">There
are a lot of invention controversies along the lines of “Big
famous company X says that it invented technology Y in (date
2), but actually plucky inventor Z had previously come up
with the same technology in (date 1). Because date 1 is
earlier than date 2 we should remember plucky inventor Z as
the true inventor of Y, despite the PR and legal resources
of company X which denied him recognition.” That’s the
narrative that Ayyadurai is telling about himself, and
reporters are liable to turn it into an Ayyadurai vs.
Tomlinson contest. Discussion of such claims head in the
direction of debates on whether plucky inventor Z’s simple
prototype really counts as inventing the technology.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">What’s
different about this case is that plucky inventor Z claims
to have invented email in either 1980 or, more recently, in
1978 (and has shown code snippets that appears to come from
1982). Whereas historians already knew that simple
electronic mail systems were in use at MIT in 1965, that
electronic mail was sent over what became the Internet in
1971, that spam was sent in 1978, that Xerox had a
recognizably modern GUI client by that time etc. So the
features of Ayyadurai’s system are not the important thing
in assessing his claim to be “the inventor of email.” I have
no reason to doubt that he produced a perfectly good local
email system. But Ayyadurai is only “the inventor of email”
if nothing done prior to 1978 (or 1980 or 1982) was email.
In other words, he’s trying to use the classic “plucky
suppressed inventor” narrative even though his date 1 is
many years later than the established date 2.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">To
rebut this claim one doesn’t need to designate any
individual as THE inventor of email, merely to reiterate the
historical consensus that email is a synonym for electronic
mail and that electronic mail was in use prior to 1978 (or
1980 or 1982). However smart and likeable you are, you can’t
invent something that’s already been invented.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Best
wishes,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Tom<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<a class="m_6892799172044733743moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dave.walden.family@gmail.com" target="_blank">dave.walden.family@gmail.com</a>
[<a class="m_6892799172044733743moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:dave.walden.family@gmail.com" target="_blank">mailto:dave.walden.family@<wbr>gmail.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January 05, 2017 10:02 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Thomas Haigh <a class="m_6892799172044733743moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:thomas.haigh@gmail.com" target="_blank"><thomas.haigh@gmail.com></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Christine Finn
<a class="m_6892799172044733743moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:christine.finn@gmail.com" target="_blank"><christine.finn@gmail.com></a>; David Golumbia
<a class="m_6892799172044733743moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dgolumbia@gmail.com" target="_blank"><dgolumbia@gmail.com></a>; Sigcis
<a class="m_6892799172044733743moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:members@sigcis.org" target="_blank"><members@sigcis.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Resources on
Ayyadurai saga<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Maybe the document should be something
like a friend-of-court brief that is provided to the defense
attorney rather than a public document and the court if the
case ever goes to court. There is plenty of time for public
documents later. I would think that passing Tom's list
below to the defense attorney would already be useful.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards, Dave<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="m_6892799172044733743apple-style-span"> <a href="http://walden-family.com/bbn/email-invention.html" target="_blank">http://walden-family.com/bbn/<wbr>email-invention.html</a>
(not updated in several years)</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Sent from my iPad<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
This email is relayed from members at <a href="http://sigcis.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">sigcis.org</a>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at <a href="http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.sigcis.org/<wbr>pipermail/members-sigcis.org/</a> and you can change your subscription options at <a href="http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.sigcis.org/<wbr>listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.<wbr>org</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>