Yeah, I think it is. An objective measure for invention is the fact that the USPTO granted a patent. That is a relatively high bar. Subject matter eligible, novel, useful, non-obvious. A reduction to practice model isn't required. Practicality isn't required.
Conversely, is it fair to say Shockley et al invented the transistor if someone else came up with the idea first? What they did was impressive and important. They deserve their fame. Hell, they won the freakin' Nobel Prize. But they didn't invent it. They improved it by leaps and bounds.
By that standard, the space elevator was invented about twenty years ago by Robert Boyd and Dimitri Thomas. I don’t see this being a good way to determine inventorship (if that’s a word).
> An objective measure for invention is the fact that the USPTO granted a patent. That is a relatively high bar. Subject matter eligible, novel, useful, non-obvious.
No, this does not reflect reality at all. That's how it ought to be, and maybe it was more like this in 1926, but it's very different from how patents are granted today.
Or that they invented the manufacturing process. I know patenting process looks at a working device but I think the spirit of invention is creativity and if they were only creative at fabricating then this is their real invention.
Seems like a fun visual puzzle to do vlsi design, but fabricating the chips is hard, so I just stick with programming.