Relevant extracts from AMS ethics: http://www.ams.org/secretary/ethics.html
The knowing presentation of
another person's mathematical discovery as one's own constitutes
plagiarism and is a serious violation of professional ethics.
Plagiarism may occur for any type of work, whether written or
oral and whether published or not.
Note: There is no doubt that the “second oversight” involved suppression of my work knowingly. Otherwise, AMS should have published a full explanation on how it is possible to pretend that something is unknown even when it is certainly known.
A claim of independence may not be based on ignorance of widely disseminated results....the Society will not knowingly publish anything that violates this principle, and it will seek to expose egregious violations anywhere in the mathematical community.
Note: Atiyah's claim to have made an “independent rediscovery” is exactly such a claim. The Society has published it, and has endorsed the claim of “independence” by allowing that all that is required to make such a claim ethical is a subsequent reference to my work. Instead of exposing this most egregious violation (which involves Einstein's error) the Society has sought to suppress it with all its might.
Note: If Atiyah did not endeavour to be knowledgeable about past work, he ought to have been censured by the Society. The language “Atiyah's hypothesis” was intended to improperly detract from my work. The impropriety of this phrase was not acknowledged, and the phrase was not withdrawn. That is the difference between action and talk about ethics.
Note: If so, the Society ought to do something to preserve this treasure. But it has put the authority of one individual above the credibility of the whole institution.