Like only a few philosophers Martin Heidegger devoted much of his time and energy to the study of other philosophers. Although his various interpretations were never meant to be scholarly contributions to the study of history of philosophy they nevertheless stirred a debate amongst scholars. Some scholars made a concession that Heidegger still would have the right to insist on his interpretations even if one could show that they are based on an incorrect reading because as a philosopher he is not bound through scholarly standards of interpretation. I will argue that we can't afford any double standards and in fact we don't need that as a philosophical discussion with Heidegger wouldn't request it. I will focus on Heidegger's early Kant interpretation and try to show that Heidegger's interpretation was based on some groundbreaking insights which he couldn't develop properly due to his selective reading of Kant. According to Heidegger Kant's main purpose was to reveal the finitude of human reason. However while he therefore refers to Kant's intuitus originarius he ignores his concept of intellectual intuition totally. Despite this constraint I will argue that his account nevertheless proves to be revolutionary in a particular sense of Copernican revolution and stress that it is indeed closer to Kant's own intentions than 'standard' Kant-interpretation. However as Heidegger later retract this interpretation I describe his account accordingly as an unfinished Copernican revolution