> he kind of made computers 'open source' The only "positive" (depeding on perspective) effect of his illegal and morally questionable action was that the patent was declared null and void due to the novelty-damaging effect of his report, among other issues supporting this outcome. The computers however did not become more "open source" because of this, just cheaper.
Declaring a patent null and void seems like a positive outcome. Patents are legally enforced monopolies after all.
So the end justifies all means? Consultants and employees who reveal trade secrets to sabotage patents are heroes in your eyes, not criminals?
Wow... How is this not more well known? It's not like von Neumann doesn't have plenty of other important contributions to his name.
It is far from settled whether the GP’s interpretation is in fact what actually happened. I highly recommend The Innovators by Walter Isaacson. Among other things, it covers this “controversy” in great detail.
History is not science. There will never be absolute certainty because human language is always open to interpretation. Even when the evidence is clear, the historiography that relates to that evidence is, again, open to interpretation. The interpretation of terms and situations changes over time, and facts can later be interpreted differently (even maliciously). Not even witness statements in a court case, of which there were several in the present case with hundreds of pages of legal reporting, are immune to interpretation. So yes, I can't prove to you that it happened that way because all of my sources are open to interpretation. There are enough other events in history that are considered sufficiently certain, and yet continue to be disputed by certain people for various motives. Some states even consider it necessary to criminalize the questioning of certain historical facts for this reason.