Relevant extracts from AMS ethics: http://www.ams.org/secretary/ethics.html
1.
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.
2.
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.
3.
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 The impropriety of this phrase was not acknowledged, and the phrase was not withdrawn.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.
4.
The public reputation for honesty and integrity of the mathematical community and of the Society is its collective treasure |
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.