More on patents and employee rights

As an engineer and a small business owner one idea that I would like to implement would be to offer shares to employees who successfully file patents. I am probably in the minority of business owners that would even consider something like this. Consulting does not get you off either, before I turned my small company into a product oriented company I did some consulting and most of the consulting contracts were very one sided. A patent strike may work, but how about we get rid of the useless patent system all together, it only serves the interest of lawyers and business owners that are incapable of inventing, they use it to own YOU. As long as the patent system exists in its current form, there will be NO freedom for engineers. Unfortunately, short of a revolution this will never happen because the lawyers are in power and they OWN the engineers. So who out there wants to start a revolution?

The crux of the issue, which no one has addressed, is the problem of the employee who conceives the cadillac version while with employer A (perhaps while disclosing the Volkswagen version with employer A) and then goes to work for employer B. Ignoring the specific issue in the California Labor code, the employer probably lost the case for two reasons. (1)Look at the clause: In case any invention is described in a patent application or is disclosed to third parties by me within one (1) year after terminating my employment with APPLIED, it is to be presumed that the invention was conceived or made during the period of my employment for APPLIED, and [THAT] the invention will be assigned to APPLIED as provided by this Agreement, provided it relates to my work with APPLIED or any of its subsidiaries." A second "that" if inserted would have had that clause come in under "presumption". By leaving out the second "that", it takes the langauge out of the "presumed" modified and states that any invention SHALL be assigned. Second, I see the company as not acting quickly on other fronts, including (a) they should have filed a patent of some sort on the project/technology as it was known, including all contributions from everyone at that point in time, in order to block or limit any subsequent patents that the employee might have become associated with; (b) they should have had an exit interview and identified TRADE SECRETS that the employee must never disclose, and have the employee acknowledge them as trade secrets during his tenure (not hurriedly during the exit interview). In the absense of these steps, a court generally disfavors the "lazy" approach of asserting rights in a larger patent (the employee and a bunch of employer B employees are the inventors) when it is discovered. If the design group is highly interactive, 90% of what the employee knew should be integratable into a patent just after or at the time the employee leaves. There is a patent office mechanism by which the company could have proceeded on its OWN patent (with company A employees + the employee leaving) by simply offering the leaving employee an opportunity to sign and having him refuse to sign, and then submit it with copies of his agreement, etc. Testimony of the other employee A inventors would have been sufficient to establish his inventorship. Therefore, to me, aside from being a narrowly focussed summary judgement opinion, this case says "the lazy and unprepared will not be rewarded"

In the late 80's and early 90's I and several others left Segway inventor Dean Kamen as we were seeing our inventions appear on patents in his name only. Not even credit mention. His "inventor recognition program" later solved that: Now all employees get their name on the patent. Whoopie!

I recently had a situation where a prospective client had slipped into the consulting contract a clause that would claim ownership of all my prior and current patentable works including all work done within a year after the end of the assignment, irrespective of it having any relevance to the work I'd be doing. Needless to say I never signed the contract nor did any further work for the client. In short, read what you sign, and refuse to sign what you don't agree with. Litigation can be extremely costly, even if the law is on your side.

Guys, It's funny to read all your posts, moaning and groaning as if you were indentured servants or slaves. If you want to continue to enjoy whatever salary and benefits your employer offers, quit bitching. They own you. If you don't like it, quit! Or, if your employers' are as dumb as you say, just wait a few more months and you'll be downsized. As for me, I enjoy working half as hard, and making twice as much as a consultant, compared to I worked for the man. No boss, no meetings. Sometimes work gets thin and I have to hustle, but that's better than a layoff. Anytime you feel like complaining about your job, watch this video. Note that his feet are bare. youtube.com/watch?v=xaO3Z4G4Jso If the URL is gone, search youtube for "Brickies Labourer in Bangladesh"

@Spin: I hear you and you're correct. I'm an EE by training and this precisely why I would never work for any medium to large company in the US ever again as a mere employee unless I had a significant equity stake or legal contract for carte blanche control in my hand. In general, I agree with and support the editorial urging a patent strike by engineers even though I'm start-up founder and executive now. I'd alternately suggest that engineers should/must consider collectively "going Galt" more permanently as a creative profession at some point soon; most manufacturing isn't even done here anymore so it's only upside for any competent engineer. My "fantasy" idea: every engineer in the US gets fed up with the crap, and all in a single day every last engineer boards a plane with their families to a handful of overseas destinations where jobs in actual engineering and manufacturing await. Sort of a version of "A Day without a Mexican" but a bit more permanent because no one has an economic reason to return. The rest of the US economy then gets what it deserves. The Fortune 1000 are _the_ problem with the US, and not one iota of the solution! If the nation is to survive it can only be with them being cleanly and entirely wiped from the economic playing field with principled smaller companies taking over the jobs the Fortune 1000 no longer know how to.

I personally think that capitalism sorts out the appropriate pay for engineers and scientists. You may not like the answer, but it is the correct one. You will not believe the rebukes I get when I argue that school teachers are fairly paid. As evidence of that, I point out that, except for math and science, they don?t have any problem finding qualified applicants. And they wouldn?t have any problem finding math and science teachers IF they paid them fairly, as well. But, given the strict teacher?s union, they can?t. Same thing goes for engineers; if one company can get better engineers by paying (real) bonuses for patents, they will prosper and the others will decline and die off. So far, it doesn?t look like they have to do that. BTW, I have gotten bonuses where I work, but it wasn?t for a patent.

And that is why I stopped inventing for my company. They are paying an engineer, not an inventor, as Alex said. I didn't receive any of the "bonuses" or "percentages" they promised verbally. Instead, a document I had to sign to continue employment, giving them all the rights to what I created. Let's see how that translates for innovation in the USA for the long run.

there is definitely a reason why the US with patent application behind other industrial nations,and companies always forget that they not hired one inventor, but one engineer and the pay just one engineer, I would suggest a new business form for American companies; GU for Greed Unlimited that will better describe the form of operation

In reference to both articles I would say that you have the right idea even if the practicality of how to implement it is not correct. I am PhD scientist, but now work on the commercial side of the business. During my tenure "in the lab" I had a number of patents issued, some of which have led to highly profitable revenue streams for the parent companies. I received approximately 100 dollars a piece for those patents (woohoo!). We talk endlessly about how we don't have enough engineers and scientists in this country and we need to get kids involved. We also talk about how the US can stay competitive in the global market because of our inventiveness. However why in the world would anyone want to go into a field with this set up. Students can go to business school, have no labs, spend more time drinking or on the squash court and end up making a far better income than scientists and engineers where there is very limited upward mobility unless you persue an entrepenural path. My parents were poor so they didn't know that a PhD in physics wasn't the greatest career path, certainly most CEOs kids probably don't get PhDs. However, if patent inventors DID maintain an ownership stake and a slice of the pie from those patents, than many of us would want to stay in the lab. But alas today it is the MBA holder that will see the fat bonus check due to scientists work, because they "took the risk" to invest in R&D. As for the impact on business, well long term its driving out inventors which is not going to do too well for either so you better figure out how to share the wealth. Patents like wages are ridiculous. Companies only talk about profit, EBIT, share price, etc - because it is Capitalism. But then we hire huge HR departments that try to run the company under socialism. They say things like "its not about the money, its about the quality of your workplace (um, no its about money thats why we have earnings calls and golden parachutes) or my personal favorite "its inappropriate for anyone to share salary information" - really? Why, so you can underpay? Its called competitive intelligence in a free market economy. So it is time to get it right - pay the people who invented, not all of it as the company did contribute facilities, money, equipment, but the inventor contributed the INTELLECT of intellectual property!

Okay, so I work for the usual dumbass organization which is highly unlikely to patent my idea. They would be highly unlikely to use it, if they did patent it. They are much more likely to sell it to the highest bidder in a blink of an eye. Their engineers (my competition, in effect) would develop it to its fullest potential and put my organization in a less competitive position, possibly leading to our superb executives' decision to downsize our engineering staff (me, in effect). What would you do ? As a professional engineer, what is ethical ?

I have a patent that was issued through a former employer in California. Technically they owned the patent and the rights for the product but their patent lawyer insisted that I received a monetary fee as well as a gift of a professional patent plaque. Well they decided that I wouldn't receive either... Since then I have changed my companies policy on patent rights and promote free thinking and boundless imagination.