1982 – Packard Speeches

Box 4, Folder 34 – General Speeches


January 11, 1982, Financial Analysts Federation, San Francisco, CA


This Technology Conference subtitled  The Second Industrial Revolution: Innovation Through Technology, was sponsored by the Financial Analysts Federation and co-sponsored by the Security Analysts of San Francisco. Packard was the Keynote Speaker on Jan. 11, 1982.


1/11/82, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech.


Packard says he is going to concentrate his comments on the electronics industry – “because, of course, electronics is where I’ve had most of my experience.” And he adds that, “I’m not going to make any comments about what I think the economy is going to do in 1982.”


He says it “might be interesting” if he spends a few minutes reminiscing about some of the early days in this industry, “because I have the impression,” he says, “that a lot of you young people think that this combination of technology and risk capital is something that has happened just in the last few years and it’s a completely new phenomenon in the economy.” He proceeds to describe the lengthy list of early inventors as well as others who contributed to the electronic industry.


Packard tells how the San Francisco Bay Area was involved in the early days of electronics, or “wireless, as it was called then,” he says. Packard mentions that “A good deal of the fundamental technical work in the field of wireless had been done in Europe with Hertz and Maxell and, of course, Marconi. There were some people here in the San Francisco area that were working in this field and the early transmitters consisted of spark devices and various sources of detectors, which were not capable of transmitting voice.


“A  young man by the name of Cy Elwell, who graduated from Stanford about 1905, was engaged by some venture capitalists at that time to look into new patents and new ideas in this field of wireless telegraphy. He looked at these ideas and concluded they were not very attractive, but in the course of this he ran into a patent taken out by a man from Denmark for something called a Poulsen arc.” Packard relates how Mr. Elwell went to Denmark, obtained a license to manufacture these arcs in the U.S., and returned to San Francisco. Packard says he brought two of the arc devices to the Bay Area, adding that David Starr Jordan, then president of Stanford, was one of the investors who contributed funds needed to make this move. “and from that,” Packard says, “came the Federal Telegraph Company.”


“The Federal Telegraph Company was established in Palo Alto about 1908. They undertook to build these Poulsen arcs and provided the basic technology that was used in World War II for all the naval transmission, the long range wireless.” Packard tells how Elwell “set up a transmitter in Sacramento and got some Chinese people to talk to their friends in China over this new wireless device. It so intrigued the people he got a lot of money from the Chinese community to support this development.


“The interesting thing about this Poulsen arc is that it provided what was really the first fundamental break-through in what has become the electronics field and it provided a basis not only for the development of a very important industry – some new technology in communication – but also, as happened in many of the subsequent basic developments that have come along in our industry, there was a wide range of supplemental developments….Some of you may recall that there was a very large tower down in Palo alto, close to the airport. That tower was erected by the Federal Telegraph Company in the early days as part of the development of this type of transmission.”


Packard tells of Lee DeForest who was working for the Federal Telegraph Company at the time he invented the vacuum tube. “…the vacuum tube,” Packard says, “was the fundamental technical breakthrough which has made the electronics industry possible. The point I want to make about it is that although this vacuum tube was invented in 1912, it was really not until 1918 and 1919 and the beginning of the 1920s that the vacuum tube was developed to the point of being a practical device. The Poulsen arc, although it was much less capable of producing high-frequency waves, continued to be built into the 1920s.


“…although Lee DeForest came up with the basic idea, [for the vacuum tube], he did not have at that time the capability of building a very good tube and it was the work done by Irving Langmer and Dr.Hall at General Electric and some people at the Bell Telephone Laboratories. The earliest development and application of the vacuum tube was not made by the Federal Telegraph Company, but rather by some of the larger companies in the East, and indeed, the most important early developments were the application of these vacuum tubes to the telephone repeaters.


“AT&T and the Western Electric Company were able to develop some very reliable vacuum tubes that were useful in long distance repeaters. By the early 1920s that were able to build vacuum tubes which could serve for radio transmitters and for radio receivers and from that beginning came the radio industry of the 1920s.


“It’s interesting to note that in the late 1920s the Federal Telegraph Company was still in existence in Palo alto and a young man named Charlie Litton was hired to work on vacuum tubes. His role was to get around the patents that had been taken out by some of the eastern companies so the Federal Telegraph Company would be able to manufacture the tube which they – actually Lee Deforest – had originally invented. I cite this to show you that for progress in this industry it takes not simply a new idea or a basic technical breakthrough; quite often infrastructure and other technology need to be developed to make these things possible.


Packard points out that in the early stages of development the wireless industry became international. The Federal Telegraph Company, which had been established by Cy Elwell in 1908, eventually became the International Telephone and Telegraph Company, with much of its business in Europe. “They built the Poulsen  arcs for the Eiffel Tower transmitter and they also developed a number of associate activities in Europe. So the whole history of radio and electronics from the very early days has been an international activity.


Packard says “The early ‘20s were a period of great activity because of the exciting development of this new radio industry and a good many of the companies were originally here in the Bay Area. The dynamic speaker was developed by a fellow named Jensen and that company was established in Oakland. There was a man named Halster who developed a radio direction finder. There was a good deal of activity, but the people found that San Francisco was not a good base for manufacturing and servicing a national market and the electronics industry moved to a large degree to the East, a good many of these firms to Chicago.


“I recall when we [at HP] were first getting started in the late 1930s Chicago was really the heart of the radio industry. Not only the firms that had moved from San Francisco, but there were new companies like Motorola getting started and there was a great deal of activity in terms of new organizations. A great many of the firms which started in those days and were very active in the 1920s – a good many of them in this area – have not continued. There was a Remler Company, which was active in making radios here in San Francisco. Heintz and Kaufman, an organization developed by a very ingenious man named Ralph Heintz, who made some important contributions to aircraft radio in the 1920s, had a very important firm here in South San Francisco in the 1930s and early 1940s, which has gone out of business.”


“It was…,” Packard says, “the middle of the 1930s when electronics came into its own.” And he tells about Fred Terman who came to Stanford in the mid 1930s as an associate professor.


“Although his professional education was in chemical engineering – he got his degree in that field from MIT – he had been interested in amateur radio as a youngster. Herb Hoover, Jr. was also there on the campus and they had quite a little activity in the radio field. Fred Terman undertook to write a textbook in 1932 and 1933 and I met him first in 1933 when I was a junior at Stanford. I had been active in the amateur radio club there and they had a station which was right next to Fred Terman’s laboratory. And he took an interest in his students. One day he stopped me and it turned out that he had gone down and looked up the record I had in every course I had taken, he knew a little bit about my involvement in athletics and he said he thought I had taken all the courses I really needed to take in the regular program; wouldn’t I like to take his graduate course in my senior year, which of course, I was delighted to do.


“Fred Terman had written a textbook called Radio Engineering and he had a unique ability to make all these complex mathematical formulas that were developed for this complex industry —  he had a knack for making these look very simple so even a fellow like me could understand them. And, during this course he arranged for us to visit some of the industries in this area. I remember visiting Charlie Litton’s laboratory in Redwood City in the spring of 1934. We visited, I think, Itel McCullough, Heintz and Kaufman, and we came up to San Francisco where a young man named Philo Farnsworth was working on the development of an electronic camera for television. I was intrigued by the fact that these young people were able to go out and do these things on their own and to a very large degree without very much venture capital. Philo Farnsworth was an exception because the thing that he was working on required a long period of development which had to be financed. But Charlie Litton, the Heintz and Kaufman people, and these other organizations were largely doing this on a do-it-yourself basis and developing their own resources as they went along.”


Packard tells how, during World War II, when the center of gravity of the electronics industry moved to the East coast. “Fred Terman went back to the radio research laboratory at Harvard and all of the concentration of electronics then was Chicago and eastward and in fact some of us who remained out here got together to organize what we called the West Coast Electronics Manufacturers Association. The original purpose was to go back and convince some of the people in Washington that they ought to give us some business out here on the West coast. I don’t know that we were terribly successful, but we did achieve some success.”


Packard says that the war period didn’t involve a great deal of innovation, “because everything was dictated from the government.”


He says “Many of us were worried about what was going to happen after World War II with the center of electronics and industry moving out to the East coast, but fortunately Fred Terman decided to come back to Stanford. When he came back, he brought a group of young people who had been working with him at the radio research laboratory, and he endeavored to build up a very strong center of electronics research and development and a center of electronics education. One of the things which made this possible was the involvement of the Office of Naval Research. “


Packard says the ONR was impressed with the contribution technology made to the success of the war, and “They undertook a program to try to identify important areas of technology, centers where these areas of technology could be developed, and then would provide funding.


“Stanford,” Packard says, “was fortunate to be a recipient of the funding for some very important work that followed. It began with some continuing work in vacuum tubes – the traveling wave tube and the backward wave oscillator which some of you will recall – and later on, the beginnings of solid-state technology. From that base they built up a very strong activity here around the Stanford community. Similar things were happening in other parts of the country – there were some similar programs developed at MIT and Cal Tech – but I think the effort here at Stanford under Fred Terman’s leadership was probably the most significant and the most impressive in the field of electronics anywhere in the country. This also provided a basis for attracting a large number of very bright people to this program. In addition to providing an excellent technical education, Fred Terman was a great advocate of innovation. He gave a lot of encouragement to a number of young people who left his laboratory and went out to establish their own businesses.”


Packard says he thinks “…one of the most important things about this electronics industry of ours is that it has now reached the point where it is influencing and building a very wide range of activities around our economy. In the early days the vacuum tube and radio work built a whole new radio industry. Following that, there was the television industry. There was a good deal of talk about industrial electronics over the years and many of us tried to do some things in this area, but it never amounted to very much. And the whole business of computers, digital computers, came along in this period, but it was not really practical until you had the transistor. They built some computers with vacuum tubes which had some capability. But now this technology has reached the place where it has a tremendous amount of versatility. It’s useful not only in maintaining the basic communication and telecommunication activity that’s necessary – radio and television – but we now see a tremendous range of activities in industrial electronics, all kinds of things we can now do that couldn’t be done before. And with the data processing aspect of the business, we now have a field which is very much broader in base than anything we had in the past.


“The development of LSI is, of course, the thing that has really made this possible and made it move ahead at a very exciting pace, but there have been a number of other aspects of this field that I think we ought to keep in mind. It is always the basic breakthroughs like the transistor or the vacuum tube that provide opportunities for entrepreneurs in this area. As a matter of fact, I suspect that most of the breakthroughs have been based upon deviations from these particular areas.”


Packard says that,  as he looks back on successful products at HP, he sees many cases where “…what appears to be a rather insignificant development in technology provides the basis for a new product which is really distinctive. I recall two or three cases that might be cited as examples. We were involved in microwave work in the early 1950s and we were working on instrumentation to make measurements in coaxial transmission lines. One of the professors – I think it was Dr. Spangenberg over at Stanford, — came up with the idea that mathematically a transmission line, instead of being an outer cylinder with a conductor, could be a pair of parallel planes in the center conductor, and that made it possible to have access to the center conductor of measuring devices and to have a different geometrical configuration with which to work. From that very simple idea we developed a series of standing wave devices and a microwave oscillator which went on the market in the early 1950s, and we just discontinued it this year. I think this is a good example of how a very little unique idea in technology can provide the basis for a very important contribution in new products.”


Packard says “you have a real advantage if you can find something where you can get a little step ahead of the other fellow and not just get on a me too basis.” He gives an example:


“ In the late 1940s we commissioned a couple of young fellows at Stanford to try to develop some new circuitry to make counters for radioactivity. Here the thought was that if we could make a counter that would respond to radioactivity in better ways it would provide a basis for us to get into the nuclear instrument business. Well, these fellows came up with a very good technique of counting pulses and as we looked at it, we finally concluded that here was a way to make a frequency measurement device with which we could actually count the number of cycles up to a range of 10 megacycles and we then put on the market the first high-frequency counter which was immensely successful. I think this is an important lesson in this field.


“When we put that first high-frequency electric counter on the market, it provided such an improved capability that the fact that it wasn’t very reliable was not a tremendous handicap. We did have a terrible problem keeping these devices running. We had to send people all over the country, and in those days we weren’t quite as sophisticated as we’ve become. We didn’t always have the development completely done before we put something on the market. I’m sure none of you fellows ever make that mistake these days. But this capability was so unique and so important that people would put up with a device that wasn’t always that reliable.


“Some of you may recall that when I was in Washington [as Deputy Secretary of Defense, 1969-1972], I spent a good deal of time trying to find ways to do a better job of development and procurement of new weapons systems….One of the conclusions I came to was that they were trying to put things into production before they were completely developed. I went down and looked at one project Lockheed was doing which the Navy was supervising, and I concluded there was no way they could meet the schedule, so I told the Navy to go back and work out a schedule to stretch out this development time. Well, the follows came back in a briefing in a typical manner and they started telling me about how important it was to get this thing done on time. I finally had to stop the whole damn thing and say, ‘We didn’t come here to decide whether we’re going to do this, we came here to decide how we’re going to do it.’ And so they did actually delay this program for a whole year and it came out very well; it would have been impossible otherwise. That optimism seems to me to be built into a lot of these programs.”


Packard says he wants to comment about the “overall situation” in the electronics industry. He says he noted that in the [printed] program for the meeting it was indicated that  technology and venture capital are the two magic ingredients of a successful business, and he suggests that “you have left out one of the most important – management. Many firms start out with excellent technology, with all the money they need, but they fail because they have been unable to develop the necessary things to complete the program — the manufacturing capability, the marketing capability, the ability to build quality into their product and, above all, the ability to attract and motivate their people….I think if you look at any successful business, money and technology are two important elements, but so are the management ability, the understanding of the problem and its larger aspects.”


“One of the deans of venture capital of the 1950s is General George Doriot. I suppose you fellows will look at his record and say he wasn’t all that successful and he certainly didn’t bat a thousand by any means. But he did have some interesting ideas about how venture capital should deal with entrepreneurship. One comment he made was, ‘We’re not just finances, we’re really doctors of child health and we have to treat our companies as children.’ He also pointed out that early success was very dangerous because it’s likely to make the entrepreneur go out and buy a 12-cylinder Cadillac and go skiing in the summer and swimming in the winter. I think there’s something to this, that the real entrepreneur and his contributions are something that his whole life is involved in and although money may be a motivation – it is a motivation – the real contributions come from those people who are dedicated.


Commenting on the “current situation” Packard says that he sees “this industry as having built up from a rather small base to an area of very wide involvement. The industry has been dependent on some very basic technology: the Poulsen arc which I cited was in the early days the basic technology that provided a foundation on which the early radio business was built; then the vacuum tube; and now the transistor.


“But what’s happened is that this base has now broadened so that we don’t have a single industry, a single area of the economy to deal with We have a tremendous range of opportunity. The transistor has been known about since 1948, the integrated circuit since about 1958; so both of these devices have been with us for 20 or 30 years. I think despite that, and I’m sure you people all recognize this, there are still a great many very interesting areas of development that are not absolutely fundamentally new ideas, but they provide an expansion of this whole technology.


“As I look at the field today, I think the opportunities for the electronic industry to continue without a breakthrough into an entirely new kind of technology are certainly going to be very exciting for at least the next 20 years. I think we have enough to work on for that time although it’s a little risky to make these projections and it’s also risky to say that you won’t find some completely new technology to replace the transistor and the integrated circuit. I don’t know of anybody who sees that unless maybe the genetic engineering people are going to help us out and find some way to do something different in that area. But I think we do have a continuing area of challenge and excitement and I would even put it this way: I’ve been in this business for over 40 years and I think the opportunities today are just as good as at any time that I was involved over these past four decades. I just wish I was young enough to start all over again, but I’m too tired to do that.”


“There is one thing that I am somewhat concerned about: that is the question of whether we are supporting a sufficient amount of basic research and development to keep this industry going. A good deal of the basic research and development on which all of us have built our businesses came from the Bell Telephone Laboratories. And, incidentally, I think the agreement on this antitrust suit is all right. I’m not sure the telecommunications industry is going to be better off for that, but at least it will preserve the Bell Laboratories as an important source of technology for us. Unfortunately, most of us who have been small companies have not had the ability or the resources to do very much in the way of fundamental research and development.


But I think there’s a growing concern about the need to do more of this and one way to do it, of course, is to develop more support for research and development at universities which is being done. Our company is looking for ways in which we can support basic research and universities around the country. For example, we’re supporting some increased activity at the University of California. I would encourage both you people who are involved in your individual businesses and you people who are involved in the venture capital business that this is a good place to put a little seed money to make sure we have a continuing basis of fundamental technology on which to build our future.”


Commenting on the Japanese situation Packard says he thinks “…there is going to be some real competition from the Japanese….the Japanese came into this industry and were able to establish a position in transistors, radios, and phonograph equipment and things like that, partly because they had lower manufacturing costs and were able to move in and achieve the market in that sense. Since that time, they have begun to make some inroads into some areas where we had a rather distinctive position, and I think they will be very serious competition in the future. They have a real dedication to hard work and they’re graduating more engineers in Japan now than we are graduating here in the United States. I think we’ll get a payoff of we do indeed increase our support to the technical education of research and development programs at our universities that will also serve to increase the number of highly educated young people we have coming to our ranks in the future. There really is a double payoff in the support of universities for all of us.


“The Japanese also intend to have a little longer term view, they have a more cooperative relationship with their government and they’re not motivated by having to show a profit quarter by quarter. I know it’s difficult to give you advice on that because I’ve said many times over that it’s just as easy to make a profit today as it is to make a profit tomorrow. I’ve seen many cases of firms who keep working on things and they think they’re going to get their yields up or get their production better next year, but manana never comes. There is a very difficult balance here in keeping a discipline to be profitable in the short term and at the same time not jeopardize your opportunity by failing to do some of the things that need to be done for the long term.


“I hope you people in the venture capital side of the business and the people in the operating side of the business will try to work together to find a better balance in supporting the long term performance of these various companies and not put too much emphasis on quarter-to-quarter performance. I know my words are not going to have very much effect on what you do in this regard, but I’m going to pass them onto you anyway.”


I think I’ll conclude the remarks with that. I think there’s a lot of life in this industry that’s going to go on for a long time and I have been asked to respond to a few questions. I’ll take the remaining minute or two to do that. It’s been good fun to be with you. I’ve rambled along, but I hope some of the things I’ve said will be of interest to you and it’s been a great pleasure to be with you this morning. Thank you very much.”


5/12/82, Note from Mary Anne Easley to Margaret Paull attaching several pages of handwritten notes made by Packard for his speech

1/10-14/82, Copy of the printed program for the conference


10/30/81, Copy of a letter to Packard from Samuel B. Jones, President of  the Financial Analysts Federation, inviting him to be the keynote speaker at their Technology Conference on January 11, 1982. He attaches a brief description of the program.

111/11/81, Letter to Packard from Phillip A. Lamoreaux, of the F.A. F. and program chairman, discussing arrangements for the conference

11/27/81 Letter to Packard from David A. Duncan, Phillip A. Lamoreaux and Clifford H. Higgerson, all of  F. A. F., giving details about the conference

12/16/81, Letter to Packard from Harry A. Hansen of the F. A. F. asking permission to record his talk

12/23/81, Copy of a Speaker Registration and Release for Recording form signed by Packard

1/14/82, Letter to Packard from Richard A. Holman, publisher of The Wall Street Transcript, asking for a copy of Packard’s comments

1/19/82, Letter to Packard from Ronald L. Nieddziela of the Wisconsin Investment Board, asking for a copy of his address

1/21/82, Letter to Packard from Malcolm Clissold asking for a copy of Packard’s address

1/27/82, Letter to Packard from Harry A. Hansen of the F. A.. F. thanking him for appearing as Keynote Speaker at their conference

2/12/82, Letter to Margaret Paull from Phillip A. Lamoreaux, saying that a tape of Packard’s speech is on the way . He also comments that paid attendance at the conference was over 550 – in excess of the 300 they expected.



Box 4, Folder 35 – General Speeches


September 13, 1982, Electronics: From a Great Past to a Great Future, Speech on receiving the John Fritz Award from the Founders Society, Anaheim, CA


9/13/82, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech


Packard says he is “greatly” honored to receive the John Fritz Award and to have the honor and pleasure to be at the Wescon/82 Electronics Exhibition and convention.


“What pleases me most,” he says, “is to have the opportunity to walk through the exhibits and look over the technical program and feel again, as I have many times over the last forty years, the high enthusiasm and unlimited optimism of the young men and women in this great electronics industry.”


Packard tells of his attendance at his first electronics show in 1940. “It was sponsored by the IRE  [International Radio Engineers] in those days, and the entire exhibit was held in the Commodore Hotel ballroom in New York City. I took three of the first Hewlett-Packard instruments with me on the train. It took two full days and three nights to get there in those days. Our exhibit consisted of a single table about 4 feet by 8 feet. I spent the entire week demonstrating our new products to potential customers and looking over the competition….”


Packard says he attended every national electronics exhibit held over the next twenty-eight years. He adds that he might still being doing so, but upon returning the HP in 1972, after three years with the government, he says he has “not been able to catch up with the technology or the market development since that time.


“As I look back over the years I have been associated with this great industry, I see several very important characteristics that make this industry unique among all of the industries in our economy.”


One characteristic he sees is “…the continuing development of new technology….At the beginning of this century, the technology built around the spark gap and Poulsen Arc created wireless telegraphy and telephony. Then came technology built around the vacuum tube which created the modern telephone system, radio broadcasting, talking pictures, television and radar – in fact, everything encompassed by the word electronics before about 1960. And then followed solid-state technology, which has expanded electronics into every aspect of our economy – indeed into nearly every aspect of our entire society.”


Packard sees another “dynamic characteristic” of the U.S. electronics industry – “its unusual dedication to innovation.” He says “There is a sort of naive enthusiasm about the people in this industry. Nothing is impossible. I remember beginning 40 years ago, how hard we worked every year to have some exciting new products ready for the next national convention and show. When we arrived to show our new instruments, we found that our competitors had been working hard, too. We sometimes found we were a little ahead, sometimes a little behind; whichever, we left the show resolved to go back to our shop and show those so and so’s how to do it next year.”


“High technology and enthusiastic innovation. Those are hallmarks of our industry, and I want to spend a little time today talking about technology and innovation in our electronics industry.


Packard tells how it took over ten years for the vacuum tube to become a practical device after Lee DeForest invented it in 1908. “…by the 1920s vacuum tubes were widely used in telephone equipment, and radio broadcasting was growing rapidly. For the next three decades all electronic technology was centered on the vacuum tube. There were many new kinds of circuitry. The negative feedback principle became widely used in the 1930s. The first Hewlett-Packard instruments were innovative applications of negative feedback.


“It became recognized that the high-frequency limit of vacuum tubes was caused by the transit time of electrons between the cathodes, grid and plate. Then the brilliant innovation of Russ Varian put the transit time effects to work and the Klystron became the first of a new family of tubes that made microwave electronics possible.”


“During World War II electronics grew by leaps and bounds. Radar and the proximity fuse greatly expanded the capability of our military forces. Radio countermeasures were developed, and these electronic developments played a decisive role in the Allied victory over Germany and Japan. In Great Britain basic contributions to the development of radar were made. Germany and Japan developed good radar and electronic communication equipment as well.


“After the war an important series of events took place which determined that the leadership role of the United States in electronics would continue right up to the present time.”


Packard says that several “influential people” in Washing D. C. were impressed with the degree of cooperation between industry, universities and the government that was shown during World War II. “The Office of Naval Research was chartered to provide continuing Federal support for electronics as well as in other fields at several major universities, including Stanford. Dr. Frederick Terman, who became Dean of Engineering at Stanford, realized that cooperation with industry would also be an important element for successful electronic research and development. This became the foundation on which the amazing growth of electronics in Silicon Valley was built. There were a number of similar developments around other universities in other parts of the country, although none was as successful or as well-known as the Stanford-Silicon Valley connection.”


“As this teamwork relationship was being developed, the transistor was invented at Bell Laboratories. This occurred in 1948, and again, as in the case of the vacuum tube, it required about ten years for the transistor to be developed to the point it would replace the vacuum tube as the active element in electronic equipment.


“By 1960 transistors began to replace vacuum tubes in most electronic equipment, and by 1970 solid-state technology had progressed to the era of integrated circuits, which are the centerpiece of electronic technology today.


‘From the very beginning of electronics in 1920, the Bell Telephone Laboratories has been by far the single most important contributor to the development of our industry. Reliable repeaters were needed for long telephone lines, and so reliable vacuum tubes were developed. Stable repeaters were needed and that requirement was the genesis of negative feedback.


“Co-axial cable and waveguide could transmit information at a high rate, and so the Bell Laboratories were in the forefront of microwave research and development. As a result of this capability in microwave electronics, the telephone company produced more than half of all United States radar equipment during World War II.


“As the use of telephones expanded, high-speed switching became a necessity, and this need catalyzed the development of the transistor. These are but a few of the important contributions made by the Bell Labs to electronics.


“I make note of these very major contributions of the Bell Labs not simply to recognize the great help they have given us, but to point out that the Bell Labs has provided a very important model of efficient research and development carried out over a long period of time. Other laboratories have had brilliant scientists, but few have had an environment with the close coupling to operating requirements that has been provided by the operating companies of the Bell System, and the close cooperation with equipment design and manufacture that Western Electric has provided. The Bell System has been a unique organization which has made a tremendous contribution to the development of our electronics industry.”


“As I look back over the years I have been involved with electronics, there is one thing which stands out above all else. The electronic industry has provided a unique opportunity for individual enterprise. Many of the most important inventions have been made by individuals, sometimes working alone, sometimes sponsored by a university or an industrial company.”


“There is hardly any other industry that has provided as great an opportunity for individual enterprise over such a long period of time. The automobile industry was one of individual enterprise in its earlier years – Ford, Olds, yes, even Packard – but no more. Other high-technology industries such as chemicals and drugs have not had as much opportunity for individual enterprise. Fortunately, the opportunity for an individual to be successful in electronics is just as great today as it was forty-three years ago when Bill Hewlett and I started out on our own.”


Packard sees the solid state technology as adequate to support at least twenty more years of innovative development. However, he adds that “…we do need a continuing influx of new basic knowledge about materials, alloys, surface effects and other things which will make it possible to expand and improve what we are already doing


“There is a great deal of concern about the state of research in the United States. None of the problems, which threaten the quality and quantity of basic research in the United States, has reached point of no return – but they could easily reach a state of real disaster unless something is done, and done soon.


“The first step is for all of us in industry to recognize that the future of our industry is inseparably dependent on maintaining the quality and quantity of basic research in the United States. To do this we must develop a much closer partnership between our industry, our universities and our large Federal research laboratories.


“During World War II, it was the partnership between our industry, universities and our Federal research laboratories that gave such great impetus to electronics. We did it before and we can do it again.”


Packard says many people in the electronics industry do recognize the need and he sees growing involvement of industry with universities and Federal laboratories. “…the need is not as much for money as it is for help on the political front. Congress and indeed some of the sponsoring agencies have a very confused idea about how a high-quality research laboratory should be organized and managed. I would encourage everyone in our industry to lean more about this very important research and development asset we have. To the extent we can help the federal laboratories do a better job, we will in the long run be helping ourselves.”


Packard turns to the matter of competition from the Japanese. “We must take the Japanese seriously,” he says. “They are bright, they work hard, and they will be serious competition in the future.


“There is nothing wrong with competition. This has always been a very competitive industry. It is mostly up to us to stay ahead, but I think we need a little help from the Federal Government.


“There are some things only our Federal Government can do to help our industry compete. First, they can put more pressure on the Japanese to reduce non-tariff trade barriers. Second, only the Federal Government can force a more realistic exchange ratio between the dollar and the yen, which has been a serious problem for every industry trading with Japan.


“The Japanese have an important advantage in the vigor and quality of their educational system. The United States educational system has seriously deteriorated in the last two decades. To bring the United States schools, colleges and universities back to a standard of excellence that is necessary to assure our technical leadership for the future, is a job for all of us. Money is needed, but also more leadership is needed. There are literally hundreds of ways people in our industry can help to bring our schools back up to the standards they had in years past.


“I would suggest that every individual in this audience can play at least a small part in the improvement of this country’s educational system, and I encourage each of you to do so.


“Finally, our industry needs a new commitment to excellence. We should not worry so much about how much money we can make next month. Instead, we should concentrate on how we an do a better job next month and every month thereafter – a better new product, better quality in all of our products, improved productivity. If we strive for excellence in everything we do over the long term, we won’t have to worry about making a profit and we won’t have to worry about staying ahead of the Japanese.


“It has been a great  experience to have been involved in the electronics field over these past forty-three years. The most satisfying thing about it all is that the opportunities for a young person looking forward to a future in electronics are just as attractive, perhaps even more so today, than they were for Bill Hewlett and me in 1939.”


9/13/82, Printed booklet titled John Fritz Medal, and containing a biography of David Packard

9/13/82, Typewritten pages titled History of the John Fritz Medal, and a list of past medal recipients


1/5/82,Letter to Packard from Betty J. Stillman of IEEE, saying they were sorry to hear he cannot make the May 23rd date, and asking that he suggest an alternate

1/13/82, Internal HP memo form Bud Eldon to Margaret Paull, saying the Executive Committee of Wescon would be honored to present the Award to Packard at their Awards Luncheon on September 13, 1982, and asking if Packard would be willing to give the keynote address.

1/25/82, Letter to Packard from W. Q. Nicholson, of the Wescon show, giving details of  the award luncheon

3/3/82, Letter to Packard from Alexander D. Korwek, Secretary of the Board of Award, saying they have not received the requested biography

3/5/82, Copy of a letter to John A. Zecca, Board of Award, from Margaret Paull, sending a biography and photograph

3/25/82, Letter to Packard  from Donald Christiansen, congratulating him on being selected to receive the John Fritz Award

9/6/82, Letter to Packard from Donald Rubendall of SFE Technologies, and saying that he hadn’t seen Packard since their trip to Israel, and inviting him to visit their plant during his visit to Los Angeles area for the John Fritz Award. A pencilled note, probably made by Margaret Paull, says “Rubendall called and told Packard’s schedule was “tight.”

June 1982, Copy of magazine Preview WESCON 1982, containing an article saying Packard will address the show luncheon as keynote speaker



Box 4, Folder 36 – General Speeches


September 15, 1982, Everett Area Chamber of Commerce, Everett, WA


Aided and abetted by Bill Kay, The HP GM of the Lake Stevens Division, The Everett Chamber of Commerce invited Packard to speak to their  annual fall meeting. Although correspondence mentions the possibility of recording his remarks, no transcription is available. The following notes are taken from some 3×5’ cards Packard wrote to outline ideas for his comments, and we have some quotations from a newspaper article describing Packard’s remarks.


9/15/82, 3×5’ outline notes made by Packard for his address.


“Pleased to be here. Not going to talk about the HP controversy – Opponents think it is a very attractive place to live

We want to build a plant here because we too think it is a very attractive area for our people to live. We both want it maintained as an attractive area to live in the future. Oregon example


“ History of electronics and U.S. leadership in innovation of electronics,  and some projections for future.


“Opportunity – 2 more decades with VLSI.


“HP role in electronics



Level of R&D

Quality of education

Japanese competition – Smart – work hard, good educational system

The close and effective relationship between U. S. Federal Government, area universities and industry began to deteriorate in the 1960s.

Anti-Viet Nam and established environmental regulations, social policy regulations


“I recognized that legislation and regulation were done without knowledge of bad effects – economic – more money for less quality in education


“Business Round Table, California Round Table

  1. To encourage chief executive officers to look beyond our boundaries
  2. To establish higher business standards and self discipline
  3. To contribute positively to shape public policy




“Santa Clara County Manufacturing Group

Increase public understanding of industry

Recommend and support public policies to keep Santa Clara attractive

Educate industry leaders on local public policies

Loan executive talent



“I understand you are already working on improving relationships between business, education, labor and government – state and county basis.


“I am very confident about future

“People are concerned about problems

“Our industry has made a new commitment to excellence.

“About the future of electronics

We need some help and at least a better understanding from government.

“We need a continuing commitment to excellence


“I want HP to become a good citizen of your community. I can assure you every one of our employees will work very hard to prove to you that we are a good citizen.


9/16/82, Clipping from the Everett [?] Herald covering Packard’s remarks. These are the quotes and some of their comments they included:


The article states that Packard advocated an approach to problem solving that would warm a progressive Democrat’s heart.


The article says Packard stated that “business should work closely with government and universities to develop a cooperative relationship and better understanding on a broad array of issues.”


He said “the electronics industry grew up under a cooperative relationship with government and universities. But by the 1960s, business-government relations had deteriorated to an adversary mode.” He and his peers addressed that problem by creating the Business Roundtable, an organization of chief executive officers from giant U.S. corporations that became actively involved in the legislative process.


“Its important,” Packard said “for business involvement in political issues to start at the top of the company, in part so that chief executive officers can broaden their outlook.


“Business people,” the article continues to quote Packard, “do have a responsibility to the community beyond making a profit for their shareholders. Business involvement is needed at the local, state and national levels.”


Companies in California set up a California roundtable along the lines of its national counterpart and Packard was active in forming county organizations to fulfill a similar role, the article said.


On the new plant in Lake Stevens the article quotes Packard as saying “in the long run [local] people will be glad we decided to come up here”


9/15/82, Printed invitation to the 1982 Annual Meeting and Recognition Dinner of the Everett Area Chamber of Commerce

2/4/82, Letter to Packard from Bill Kay, General Manager of HP’s Lake Stevens plant, saying the Everett Chamber of Commerce is “enthusiastic” about the possibility of having Packard coming to speak to them

3/5/82, Letter to Packard from Bill Kay saying they are delighted Packard will speak to the C. of C. there in Everett

6/7/82, Letter to Packard from Paul Seely, General Manager of the Everett Chamber of Commerce, discussing a date for the annual meeting that is satisfactory to all parties

6/24/82, Letter to Margaret Paull, Packard’s secretary, talking about dates

8/25/82, Note from Margaret Paull to Packard saying Bill Kay had called with some suggestions on ideas for his speech

8/27/82, Letter to Packard from Paul Seely, C. of C. General Manager, discussing arrangements for the dinner, and adding that “Hewlett-Packard has given the business community a much needed boost in morale and your personal visit underscores our visions of a much brighter future.” He encloses some printed  information sheets and pamphlets about Everett and the Chamber.

8/31/82, Letter to Packard from Robert Humphrey, newspaper columnist in Everett, enclosing some historical data on the Everett area

9/7/82, Memo from Bob Kirkwood, HP Manager of Government Relations, with a suggested outline of ideas for Packard’s speech

9/24/82, Letter to Packard from Bill Kay, thanking him for coming to

Everett and speaking to the C. of C. meeting.

Undated, Handwritten note to Packard from Dennis Coleman, an HP employee in Lake Stevens, saying it is an “honor and a great benefit to have you come and speak to the community.”



Box 4, Folder 37 – General Speeches


October 14. 1982, 1982 Sylvanus Thayer Award, U. S. Military Academy, West Point, NY


10/14/82, Typewritten text of Packard’s remarks upon receiving the Sylvanus Thayer Award


Packard says, “…it is indeed flattering to be associated with Sylvanus Thayer, who was an engineer and who has been recognized as the ‘Father of Technology in the United States.’


“It is also most appropriate that the U.S. Military Academy, in memorializing Thayer, has recognized the close and important relationship between technology, engineering and military affairs. “

Packard reviews some of the history of the relationship between technology, engineering and military affairs – going back to the “Bronze Age.” He says “The ability to smelt ore to obtain copper and tin, and then to alloy the two to make bronze, affected many aspects of the civilization of that period. Nowhere was the effect more important than on military capability. Bronze made it possible to construct better offensive weapons, more effective body armor, and probably led to the development of the chariot.”


“Bronze made possible better spears and swords – the firepower of that era. It also made possible a very fundamental defense – body armor. And military mobility received a great boost with the invention of the chariot, which is thought to have been used in Mesopotamia as early as 3000

B. C., probably about the middle of the “Bronze Age.”


“And Packard tells of the contribution of engineering to the art of military capability: stone walls, battering rams, scaling devices, catapults.”


“When the “Bronze Age” gave way to the “Iron Age” about 3000 years ago, another quantum leap in military capability became possible. Then came the invention of gun powder and its military use, beginning about the 14th century, and another new family of military weapons.”


It takes years to realize all the military benefits from a major technological breakthrough, and those breakthroughs don’t come very often. One of the most important in recent times as the invention of the internal combustion engine, because from that technology have come the truck, the jeep, the tank, and the aeroplane.  Aeroplanes were first used extensively during World War I, with jets entering the picture at the end of World War II.”


Packard says he has been talking about how the military has benefited from technology. “The opposite also occurs,” he says, “where military requirements serve to catalyze technological developments.


“One of the most interesting cases I learned from Dr. Hans Merk, who was undersecretary of the Air force at the time he did this research “ And he tells the story of how, in the 18th century,  the British government offered a prize of 20,000 pounds for anyone who developed a way for sailors to determine longitude. John Harrison, a British craftsman, Packard relates, spent over 30 years developing an accurate chronometer that finally won him the prize.


Packard calls World war II the “epitome” of technology’s contribution to the military. “The era saw the development of radar, the proximity fuse, sonar, and finally the atom bomb. And in the 37 years since the war ended, all of the weapons based on the technology of that time continue to be improved.”


“Up until about ten years ago, the improvements in military weaponry did not include much new technology beyond that available at the end of the war, except solid state electronics technology which, though invented in 1948, began to be deployed in weapons of the 1960s. there were vast improvements in jet aircraft, nuclear weapons, and, of course, the whole development of space. Rockets, however, were developed by the Germans in the Second World War, and our space effort required great technical improvement but evolved few new basic scientific principles.


“Where do we stand today,” Packard asks, “in this relationship between engineering, technology, and military capability? I believe we are in the early stages of the application of a new technology that could bring about a watershed improvement in military capability. That technology is digital data processing. This technology came into existence without any particular pressure of military requirements. The first digital computers had limited military use, but shortly after they appeared, many important military applications became evident and are now already used.


“It is, however, the combination of solid state electronics and the digital computer which has given us what will be a new landmark breakthrough in military capability, perhaps comparable in importance to many of the giant steps of the past. We can now make smart weapons that have more than homing capability. They can now also have on board the capability to make complex decisions about what they are expected to do. The use of remotely piloted vehicles now becomes much more effective. As more computer capability is added to offensive weapons, electronic countermeasures will have to keep pace. By combining solid state electronics with digital data handling technology, we can build into the weapons of the future an entirely new combination of firepower, mobility, and deception.”


Packard says it will be some ten to twenty years for this new digital technology to be translated into better weapons. “It will be an exciting opportunity,” he says, “for all of you who are now attending this Academy, for this new military-technological revolution will be in full force as you enter your professional careers in the next few years.


Packard offers a suggestion to the members of his audience: “Even though you are not an engineer or a scientist, you must learn enough about how it works. You cannot be an expert in technology without a large investment of time. Some of you may become experts, but others will have different major responsibilities. A working understanding will help immeasurably for those of you who will work with the professional scientists and engineers of the future.


“Also, remember that military equipment alone is not sufficient to assure victory, whether in a battle or a war. Strategy and tactics are always important, often decisive. These must be tailored to the new weapons, not the old. Training is essential and will become increasingly important as weapons become more complex. Other intangibles are important, too. Between two equally matched and equipped forces, often the battle is won by the side with the best morale. Leadership and spirit prevail, and all of you here at West Point recognize that fact.


“Again, let me say I am greatly honored to receive this Award. And while I have had an interesting and very satisfying career, I envy you who are just starting. I am sure the opportunities to forge strong and continu9ng links between technology and m8litary capability will be even greater for all of you in the future than they have been for any of the great people who have plowed this important field since the dawn of history.


“Thank you.”


10/14/82, Printed program of the Award ceremony, containing a biography of Packard

10/14/82, Typewritten sheet containing criteria for the Thayer Award

10/14/82, Typewritten sheets listing Thayer Award Guests

3/5/82, Letter to Packard from George F. Dixon, Jr., President Association of Graduates, United States Military Academy, West Point, New York. Mr. Dixon informs Packard that he has been selected as the 1982 recipient of the Sylvanus Thayer Award. He lists past recipients and hopes Packard will agree to accept the award.

4/6/82, Copy of a letter from Packard to George F. Dixon, Jr. saying that he has discussed the matter with a James Q. Brett who will report to Mr. Dixon “in due course.”

4/30/82, Letter to Packard from George Dixon confirming their phone conversation of April 29 settling on October 14 as the date for the presentation of the award

6/18/82, Letter to Packard from General Winfield Scott (Retired), congratulating him on being selected to receive the Thayer Award, and he adds that it has been one of his objectives for some time to see this Award presented to Packard.

9/2/82, Copy of a letter from Margaret Paull (Packard’s secretary) to Col. Robert J. Lamb, (Ret.), enclosing a biography and a list of people to invite

9/13/82, Small typewritten note, no doubt from Margaret Paull to Packard, which says “I was talking to Dean & Virginia Rusk over the weekend…Dean sends you congratulations on the Sylvanus Thayer Award…says it’s a very prestigious honor!”

9/14/82, Letter to Packard from Edward W. Carter congratulating him on the honor

9/14/82, Letter to Packard from General A. C. Wedemeyer (Ret.) congratulating him on the award

9/14/82, Letter to Packard from Jack Guy, President Standard Oil Company of California offering congratulations

9/14/82, Letter to Packard from Richard G. Capen, Jr. of Knight Ridder Newspapers, Inc. saying they are sorry they cannot be at the award ceremony

9/15/82, Letter from Melvin R. Laird saying he is sorry to have to miss the award ceremony

9/15/82, Letter to Packard from Otto N. Miller offering congratulations

9/16/82, Letter to Packard from Charles E. Odegaard, President Emeritus, University of Washington, offering congratulations. He adds that “you will be interested to know that the presence of the Hewlett-Packard plant in Boise, Idaho has awakened some of the conservative-type politicians and state figures in Idaho to the desirability of improving support for education and the development of a more skilled population.”

9/16/82, Letter to Packard from Kenneth E. Hill, offering congratulations and regrets

9/17/82, Letter to Packard from Malcolm C. Todd M. D., sending regrets

9/22/82, Letter to Packard from Lauro F. Cavazos, Ph D., President Texas Tech University, sending congratulations and regrets

9/22/82, Letter to Packard from Jack R. Wheatley, offering congratulations

9/24/82, Letter to Packard from Steve Bechtel, sending congratulations and regrets

9/27/82, Handwritten letter to Packard from Phil Montgomery, sending congratulations and regrets

9/29/82, Letter to Packard from Lee L. Morgan, Chairman and CEO, Caterpillar Tractor Co., offering congratulations and regrets

10/4/82, Letter to Packard from James Q. Brett, Chairman of the Thayer Award Selection Committee saying they are delighted Packard was able to accept the nomination for the Award. He enclosed a biography of himself.

10/4/82, Letter to Packard from Joseph D. Matarazzo offering congratulations and regrets

10/4/82, Handwritten letter to Packard from Leonard Heaton offering congratulations and regrets

10/4/82, Letter to Packard from Charlie Kitto, sending congratulations and regrets. He adds “We certainly enjoyed being with you and Lucille (sic) last week.”

10/5/82, Letter to Packard from Ernest Arbuckle, sending congratulations and regrets

10/5/82, Note to Packard from Rene C. McPherson sending congratulations and regrets

10/5/82, Letter to Packard from James R. Ambrose sending congratulations and regrets

10/6/82, Letter to Packard from Robert J. Lamb sending copies of remarks at the presentation ceremony of some previous Thayer Award recipients

10/6/82, Letter to Packard from Eberhard Rechtin, President, The Aerospace Corporation, sending congratulations and regrets

10/7/82, Letter to Packard from Samuel M. Armacost, President, Bank of

America, sending congratulations and regrets

10/8/82, Letter to Packard from Francis D. Moore M. D. se ding congratulations and regrets

10/11/82, Letter to Packard from Eugene M. Farber, M. D., Chairman of the Department of Dermatology, Stanford University, offering congratulations and regrets

10/12/82, Handwritten note from Morris M. Doyle, offering congratulations and regrets

10/13/82, Handwritten note to Packard from Gloria and Bob Brown sending congratulations and regrets

10/27/82, Copy of a letter from Packard to George F. Dixon, of the West Point Association of Graduates, saying “You once wrote me ‘your experience here on 14 October, at the true birthplace of our nation’s military education, will be one which you will always remember.’ “You were entirely right!,” Packard continues. “Mrs. Packard and I thoroughly enjoyed our visit. I was especially pleased to be in the company of the fine young cadets – those young men and women who will carry on the leadership of our country in the future.


“The sword arrived safely this morning and I will treasure it. Please express my sincere thanks to the Association of Graduates for selecting me for the Sylvanus Thayer Award.”

10/28/82, Copy of a letter from Packard to Lt. Gen. Willard W. Scott, Jr. thanking him for the “wonderful day” he and Mrs. Packard enjoyed.

11/29/82, Note to Packard from Justin Dart offering congratulations

12/6/82, Letter to Packard from Charles E. Odegaard, saying he was pleased to receive a copy of Packard’s remarks

12/15/82, Letter to Packard from Alexander M. Haig, Jr. adding his congratulations after seeing an article on the Award in the West Point Association of Graduates magazine

12/21/82, Letter to Packard from Myron DuBain, offering congratulations


9/11/80, copy of remarks made by a previous Award recipient, Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh

10/10/79, Copy of remarks by another Award recipient, Clare Booth Luce

March, 1982, Copy of an article titled The Dual Track Curriculum, by LTC William R. Calhoun Jr.


3/5/82, Copy of the biography submitted by Packard for the Award



Box 4, Folder 38 – General Speeches


November 8, 1982, Army Science Board, Presidio, San Francisco, CA


11/8/82, Outline of remarks, handwritten by Packard


“Little I can say to such a distinguished group.


“Status of science and technology in U.S.

“Federal Laboratories

“Technology transfer


“Concern about U.S. leadership in science and technology


“After World War II we had dominant position: electronics, aviation, rockets and space (Soviets), computers and data products.


“Europe and Japan began to catch up in 1960s.


“Changes  – late 1960s into 1970s


Less emphasis on technology and move on humanities.

Equal opportunity – minorities, education, more graduates – in some ways quality suffered.



Viet Nam syndrome, cut back in military spending, Mansfield amendment, more controls on federal R & D programs.



More money on medical research, health and environment.



End of low cost energy

Much effort on alternate energy sources

Opposition to nuclear power

Ten fold increase in price of oil


“Where do we stand today?


Still leaders in science and technology in most field, electronics, computers, biological engineering, agriculture, aviation.


Rate of increases in R. & D  higher in Japan and some European countries – more patents, more engineering graduates etc.


The U.S. has lost some of its momentum in science and technology.

This is not all bad – e.g. high energy physics, nuclear energy, e.g. breeder reactor.

The U.S. must maintain a substantial lead!


“Military – Technology more important in future

Equipping the Army 1990-2000

Lasers, robotics, simulation, artificial intelligence, air defense, BMD, armor/anti-armor

All military services have made great progress in applying technology in last two decades.


1980s could be even more important; VLSI will add great capability, directed energy, space, etc.


The Army has a great challenge & a great opportunity.


Two things are required: Keeping ahead on our technological base – and having both the technology and the ingenuity to use it to advantage.


The real shortfall is the time it takes to get new technology weapons to the forces.



“Two things the Army can do to help maintain leadership in our technological base.

Make better use of the Army Laboratories

Develop better involvement with university research


“There have been many studies of DOD laboratories.

Personnel and salary policies do not attract, keep and motivate the best technical people

There are not enough centers of excellence in scientific discipline essential to the Army.

The laboratories are not as closely coupled to the Army command people as they should be,

Facilities and equipment are often out of date and unsuited to today’s latest technology.

“I would encourage the Army Science Board to address the Army Laboratories problems

“Much basic research comes from our university laboratories and they are the main source of our scientists and engineers. The Army could selectively support more R & D or universities and perhaps shift ROTC emphasis more into technical and engineering areas.


“Again, this is an area where the Army Science Board could help in the development and utilization of technology, not only for the Army but for our entire country. We must keep up technological base but we must get it to field faster.  30%/year


“I know you have a task force on improving the acquisition process. I spent time on this problem 1979-71 – Defense Systems Management College at Fort Belvoir.


“The procurement process is still too highly structured to enable new and innovative technology to be evaluated and brought into the force structure. I still believe the prototype procedure still has much to offer and I believe that more discretionary money for the Army laboratories and more Discretionary money for some of the commands to try out new ideas in the field might do a great deal to get advanced technology weapons into the field faster.

“Finally, a word about technology transfer. I believe we are overly worried about this problem and we could easily do ourselves more damage than the Soviets if we continue this over zealous posture.


“Most basic scientific knowledge is available on a world wide basis. The Soviet Academics do excellent scientific work. In fact, the idea for a new weapon that could become very important, and is now highly classified by us, came from a Soviet publication.


“Historically, communication between scientists has been very important in developing and confirming new ideas. In my experience most progress in the electronics field has come when several people in different places are working on a new idea and exchanging their views.


“There is no way we can stop this kind of exchange at the Soviet borders, or even at the borders of the U.S. without very tight security on every research and development activity, and this certainly would be deadening to progress.


“On the other hand, the Soviets are not very good at putting new ideas into production. For that reason they seek to buy turnkey plants, manpower processes, tooling – all of which can and should be controlled.


“There is really not much to be gained in controlling the sale of non-military end products. If U.S. companies are prohibited, European or Japanese have to be prohibited also, and even then if it is a commercial product dummy fronts are easily set up to obtain the device.


“The pipeline case is a good example of how not to do it. The U.S. lost a lot of jobs, U.S. business lost credibility in Europe and no damage was done to the Soviets.


I Believe the policies followed during the so-called ‘détente’ were much more sensible. If we put all of our efforts on staying ahead by  [     ?     ] our own technology, improving our ability to get new weapons to the forces we would be far ahead.”


9/30/82, Letter to Packard from Amoretta M. Hoeber, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, saying she is pleased Packard has agreed to speak to the Army Science Board, and discusses arrangements for the meeting. Enclosures list recent activities of the Board and Board membership.