ENIAC programmer Jean Bartik's Amazon book review
amazon.com
amazon.com
Jean Bartik has e.g. also written an autobiography, see "Pioneer Programmer: Jean Jennings Bartik and the Computer that Changed the World" (2013), Truman State University Press.
And there is a lot of interesting information in the Honeywell vs. Sperry Rand patent court case. Here is a summary: http://jva.cs.iastate.edu/courtcase.php. Here is a Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell,_Inc._v._Sperry_Rand.... And here is the judgement with all the details: https://web.archive.org/web/20160327031754/http://www.ushist....
And of course there is the story written by Kathleen McNulty Mauchly Antonelli: https://web.archive.org/web/20230306052255/https://sites.goo....
There are also some interviews which you can find on youtube.
One must also be aware that there are a few publications by people who were also involved in an inglorious way, but preferred to convey a different but wrong version of the story in their favor. Jean Bartik and others have addressed these publications (e.g. in other Amazon reviews, or in the referenced interviews).
This was good for the development of computers, that there was no initial patent thicket/fight. See early aviation history for a contrast.
I'd doubt too that von Neumann was burning to steal credit for the stored-program concept. He'd already gained a world-class reputation by his earlier work, and I haven't heard of anything else similar from him. (BTW I did read on /r/math the other day someone saying that an early paper from von Neumann got held up by Birkhoff as editor of the journal, iirc, who proceeded to publish a stronger result first using vN's idea. So it's not like you never hear about unscrupulous conduct from mathematicians.)
For context, the ENIAC patent [1] was filed in 1947, leading to the six-year Honeywell v. Sperry Rand patent fight [2], ending in the invalidation of the ENIAC patent.
[1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US3120606 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell,_Inc._v._Sperry_Rand.... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/1973/04/13/archives/a-basic-computer...
Well, he obviously has left out the main inventors of the design as authors and didn't even mention them in the credits (nor the references), and neither he nor Goldstine had the permission to distribute/publish details of the design. Not exactly the behavior I would expect from a reputable scientist. That's like translating an Einstein paper to some other language/formalism and then just putting the name of the translator on the authors list (leaving out the actual author). There have already been students expelled from universities for minor offenses.
That last line gave me a chuckle… the most positive feedback Bartik could provide, which somehow hurt more for the writing.