inventor of laser Gordon Gould is dead

[Joost den Draaijer]

Gordon Gould conceived and designed one of the most significant
inventions of the 20th century: the laser.
May he rest in peace.

 

[Mazz]

Gordon Gould conceived and designed one of the most significant
inventions of the 20th century: the laser.
May he rest in peace.

I thought it was Theodore Maiman?

 

[Douglas G. Cummins]

http://www.bookrags.com/sciences/sciencehistory/laser-woi.html

 

[Joost den Draaijer]

I thought it was Theodore Maiman?

There is some controversy about that.

<http://www.sff.net/people/Jeff.Hecht/pioneers.html>

 

[jeff]

Drs Towns and Schalow may have something to say about that.

Steve Roberts

Yes, but considering MASERs occur in nature, perhaps no one can claim
it's "invention".

 

[Bob Travis]

After looking at the two links presented, and from an entirely lay
perspective, it would seem that since a "red tape" (no pun intended) error
cost Gould the initial patent, the fact he indeed had legal (notarized)
claim to his acronym "laser," and since the earlier patent by Townes and
Schawlow was later invalidated it seems reasonable to call Gould the
inventor of the laser (at least the word laser), although to be fair to all
involved (East and West alike) is Gould any more the inventor of the laser
than Ford, the automobile -- or the Wright Brothers, the airplane --
considering others had already built cars and Da Vinci was among the
pioneers of aeronautics theory four centuries earlier when he demonstrated
heliocopters were possible (according to his sketches and notations).

 

[David Lee]

redbelly98 wrote...

I have to disagree with you there. If he didn't build an actual
working device, he did not demonstrate they were possible.

No, but that isn't necessary. His prior publications effectively prevent
anyone else from patenting the same priciples - should anyone actually
manage to build a commercial ornithopter!

David

 

[Don Klipstein]

I have to disagree with you there. If he didn't build an actual
working device, he did not demonstrate they were possible.

At least within modern standards, one can patent an invention not yet
built. The USPTO is at least mostly not demanding working models.

It surely appears to me that if the patent application describes the
invention to an extent to be produced by "those skilled in the art"
(including any necessary minor modifications obvious to only those
"skilled in the art") then the invention described in the patent
application only has to be adequately unique in order to be patentable.
Furthermore, the patent application even does not have to describe any
embodiments that work better for current applications than the "prior art"
does, although it helps to write in "background of the invention" how the
invention will improve upon the prior art even if waiting for an
improvement in related technology. However, the unique invention as
described should be then-currently reproduceable in a working form (even
if at that time in an inferior manner) by those "skilled in the art" when
working from nothing but "their skills in the art" and detailed
description of the invention in the patent application - it only has to
work at all and be adequately described to be reproduced by "others
skilled in the art" and to be adequately unique, as determined by the
patent examiner.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])