Its not about that, its about dismissing practical trains of thought - outright. Ironically, the author of the article is such a person.
> To invent something is to invent a practical version of that thing.
It is not. Like with everything from the chain of command to the chain of events it takes all links in the chain to make it a chain.
You might as well argue that it is marketing that is responsible for the invention or that the consumer in their decision to purchase the newfangled contraption decides if the invention is real or not. Or no wait, the financier, he is the true visionary.
> If your “invention” is impractical, it’s just a demo or prototype
Oh, that is only this and that. Someone who trivializes the prototype doesn't have what it takes to envision it, let alone make it. Hardly a position fromwhich to judge those who did and do.
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.
The 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.
I suppose from point of view of idea retention and acceptance - for the idea to go 'viral' - you need a strong practical example.
Humans are really great at taking into use new practical tools. Not so much taking in a half-established concept and turning it into something usefull.
So, from point of view of innovation, you are right. From the point of view of what matters from historical perspective to get a new idea stick, the author has a strong point.
> To invent something is to invent a practical version of that thing.
It is not. Like with everything from the chain of command to the chain of events it takes all links in the chain to make it a chain.
You might as well argue that it is marketing that is responsible for the invention or that the consumer in their decision to purchase the newfangled contraption decides if the invention is real or not. Or no wait, the financier, he is the true visionary.
> If your “invention” is impractical, it’s just a demo or prototype
Oh, that is only this and that. Someone who trivializes the prototype doesn't have what it takes to envision it, let alone make it. Hardly a position fromwhich to judge those who did and do.