Re:The Surprising Story of the First Microprocessors (2016)
by cxr on Friday September 17, 2021 @07:52AM
(#28564357)
> Although both patents were granted, no records exist to prove that Heil or Lilienfeld actually constructed functioning devices. <https://www.computerhistory.org/siliconengine/field-effect-s...>
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The Surprising Story of the First Microprocessors (2016)
by Rochus on Friday September 17, 2021 @08:51AM
(#28564845)
It's still an invention by definition (patent law). Thanks for the article; notably the article makes no doubt that the invention by Lilienfeld would have worked; apparently he just didn't build it himself.
Re:The Surprising Story of the First Microprocessors (2016)
by xyzzy21 on Friday September 17, 2021 @04:39PM
(#28570654)
But it means nothing. People patented perpetual motion machines throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. So does that make the patent meaningful? NO!
Re:The Surprising Story of the First Microprocessors (2016)
by Rochus on Friday September 17, 2021 @05:52PM
(#28571307)
Apparently this is an emotional topic; personally I have no stakes in it (besides that I'm a trained electrical engineer and had lectures in patent law), I'm just curious; Colby sent me this link which describes an experiment where they built Lilienfelds device in the nineties: http://public.gettysburg.edu/~bcrawfor/BECrawford-MS-UVM.pdf