‘What would you say influenced the vote?’

Defense objected immediately.

Prosecution rephrased the question. ‘What influenced you, personally, in your individual vote? You did vote in favor, I think.’

‘I voted in favor, yes. I did so largely because I was impressed by Dr Lanning’s feeling that it was our duty as members of the world’s intellectual leadership to allow robotics to help Man in the solutions of his problems.’

‘In other words, Dr Lanning talked you into it.’

‘That’s his job. He did it very well.’

‘Your witness.’

Defense strode up to the witness chair and surveyed Professor Hart for a long moment. He said, ‘In reality, you were all pretty eager to have Robot EZ-27 in your employ, weren’t you?’

‘We thought that if it could do the work, it might be useful.’

‘’If it could do the work? I understand you examined the samples of Robot EZ-27’s original work with particular care on the day of the meeting which you have just described.’

‘Yes, I did. Since the machine’s work dealt primarily with the handling of the English language, and since that is my field of competence, it seemed logical that I be the one chosen to examine the work.’

‘Very good. Was there anything on display on the table at the time of the meeting which was less than satisfactory? I have all the material here as exhibits. Can you point to a single unsatisfactory item?’

‘Well—’

‘It’s a simple question. Was there one single solitary unsatisfactory item? You inspected it. Was there?’

The English professor frowned. ‘There wasn’t.’

‘I also have some samples of work done by Robot EZ-27 during the course of his 14-month employ at Northeastern. Would you examine these and tell me if there is anything wrong with them in even one particular?’

Hart snapped, ‘When he did make a mistake, it was a beauty.’

‘Answer my question,’ thundered Defense, ‘and only the question I am putting to you! Is there anything wrong with the material?’

Dean Hart looked cautiously at each item. ‘Well, nothing.’

‘Barring the matter concerning which we are here engaged, do you know of any mistakes on the part of EZ-27?’

‘Barring the matter for which this trial is being held, no.’

Defense cleared his throat as though to signal end of paragraph. He said, ‘Now about the vote concerning whether Robot EZ-27 was to be employed or not. You said there was a majority in favor. What was the actual vote?’

‘Thirteen to one, as I remember.’

‘Thirteen to one! More than just a majority, wouldn’t you say?’ ‘No, sir!’ All the pedant in Dean Hart was aroused. ‘In the English language, the word ‘majority’ means ‘more than half.’ Thirteen out of fourteen is a majority, nothing more.’

‘But an almost unanimous one.’

‘A majority all the same!’

Defense switched ground. ‘And who was the lone holdout?’

Dean Hart looked acutely uncomfortable. ‘Professor Simon Ninheimer.’

Defense pretended astonishment. ‘Professor Ninheimer? The head of the Department of Sociology?’ ‘Yes, sir.’

‘The plaintiff?’

‘Yes, sir.’’

Defense pursed his lips. ‘In other words, it turns out that the man bringing the action for payment of $750,000 damages against my client, United States Robot and Mechanical Men, Incorporated, was the one who from the beginning opposed the use of the robot-although everyone else on the Executive Committee of the University Senate was persuaded that it was a good idea.’

‘He voted against the motion, as was his right.’

‘You didn’t mention in your description of the meeting any remarks made by Professor Ninheimer. Did he make any?’

‘I think he spoke.’

‘You think?’

‘Well, he did speak.’

‘Against using the robot?’

‘Yes.’

‘Was he violent about it?’

Dean Hart paused. ‘He was vehement.’

Defense grew confidential. ‘How long have you known Professor Ninheimer, Dean Hart?’

‘About twelve years.’

‘Reasonably well?’

‘I should say so, yes.’

‘Knowing him, then, would you say he was the kind of man who might continue to bear resentment against a robot, all the more so because an adverse vote had—’

Prosecution drowned ou’t the remainder of the question with an indignant and vehement objection of his own. Defense motioned the witness down and Justice Shane called luncheon recess.

Robertson mangled his sandwich. The corporation would not founder for loss of three-quarters of a million, but the loss would do it no particular good. He was conscious, moreover, that there would be a much more costly long-term setback in public relations.

He said sourly, ‘Why all this business about how Easy got into the university? What do they hope to gain?’

The Attorney for Defense said quietly, ‘A court action is like a chess game, Mr Robertson. The winner is usually the one who can see more moves ahead, and my friend at the prosecutor’s table is no beginner. They can show damage; that’s no problem. Their main effort lies in anticipating our defense. They must be counting on us to try to show that Easy couldn’t possibly have committed the offense-because of the Laws of Robotics.’