4 ms·
Furthermore, if I understand the position, the patent office would not agree to the OP's definition either .. as long as the original maker of the "prototype" c
by sriku 7y ago
Furthermore, if I understand the position, the patent office would not agree to the OP's definition either .. as long as the original maker of the "prototype" could describe the mechanism well enough. The inventor of the "practical" version would have to articulate what it took above and beyond the prototype and even then only be able to patent that part and not including the invention covered by the proto.
- Ajedi32 7y agoTo me that sounds more like an argument against our patent system than an argument in favor of counting impractical prototypes as inventions.
- sriku 7y agoThe patent system is supposed to be to encourage knowledge sharing in society by granting monopoly in exchange for full disclosure of invention details. Imposing an irregular concept like "practicality" on top this is counterproductive. Practicality is not straightforward. Was Edison's light bulb practical on its own terms or did it become practical only after the invention of electric power generation and distribution? What about economies of scale? .. and so on.