1. bobby on May 17, 2005 11:50 AM writes...

and so do I..

2. bobby on May 17, 2005 12:01 PM writes...

I would agree to.. with exception..

Copyright is on expression. (my speech, book, drawing etc)
Patent is on physical implementation. (engine, window opening mechanism, etc)
in software, the way I write it is copyright. The idea is free to be expressed by another in their own way. (as I can write another book about slavery even tho there are many books already existing on the subject)

But to give the patent/copyright to the inventor/writer is a needed return to Jeffersonian principles.

A contract is presumed to be an agreement between equals.. It is time to make parties more equal.. that is governments job. Sadly, it sees its job as the opposite.. to support the powerful over the weak.

3. Jonathan Peterson on May 17, 2005 12:14 PM writes...

Way too simple. never happen, even if it should.

4. Nate on May 17, 2005 03:52 PM writes...

This is a very good idea Dana. I had never thought of that before. It's simplicity makes it almost brilliant.

Suppose that an invention is the work of a group of people; perhaps each individual would be granted a portion of the patent, and a parallel portion of whatever money the patent may generate. At some point I suppose such a group of individuals could be called a corporation, so at what point does a group become ineligible to hold a patent. Perhaps a patent should be granted in whole to a single person only (forgive me if I am just repeating what you said), and then the revenue generated should be apportioned by some other contractual means.

5. Brad Hutchings on May 18, 2005 04:09 AM writes...

From the USPTO:

Who May Apply For A Patent

According to the law, only the inventor may apply for a patent, with certain exceptions. If a person who is not the inventor should apply for a patent, the patent, if it were obtained, would be invalid. The person applying in such a case who falsely states that he/she is the inventor would also be subject to criminal penalties. If the inventor is dead, the application may be made by legal representatives, that is, the administrator or executor of the estate. If the inventor is insane, the application for patent may be made by a guardian. If an inventor refuses to apply for a patent or cannot be found, a joint inventor or, if there is no joint inventor available, a person having a proprietary interest in the invention may apply on behalf of the non-signing inventor.

If two or more persons make an invention jointly, they apply for a patent as joint inventors. A person who makes only a financial contribution is not a joint inventor and cannot be joined in the application as an inventor. It is possible to correct an innocent mistake in erroneously omitting an inventor or in erroneously naming a person as an inventor.

Officers and employees of the United States Patent and Trademark Office are prohibited by law from applying for a patent or acquiring, directly or indirectly, except by inheritance or bequest, any patent or any right or interest in any patent.

Patents are typically assigned to corporations (who fund the research leading to the patentable invention and paying the legal fees of applying for the patent) by IP agreements which are standard in the computer industry. The IP agreements are one reason that computer guys who are capable of inventing things still get paid the big bucks. Assignability of patents has been a key for post-dot-bomb tech startups to raise money. Weary VCs know that if a team can't execute or has bad luck or bad timing, they can salvage some of their investment and try again or sell to an interested party. If you want funding these days, get a worthwhile patent first. So disallowing assignability of patents seems to me to be the most anti-entrepreneurial policy imaginable.

6. bobby on May 18, 2005 01:11 PM writes...

People who 'invent' do so for the joy of creating. This dispite the fact that they will most likely lose their rights to said patented entity. The only benefit in having the patent right transfered to a cooperation (who can then ignore the rights/needs of the inventor) is to the cooperation. It now 'owns' the profitable entity with the creator out of the loop. If it were illegal for the transfer, I suspect more individuals would engage in patentable endeavors. Also, if the patent rights were still held by the creator, that person would be more valuable to another employer, thereby increasing his/HER likely recompense.

to paraphrase "So disallowing assignability of patents seems to me to be the most PRO-entrepreneurial policy imaginable."

BTW, there, without patents, is still a market for 'computer guys' to 'get paid the big bucks' in (sorry for the gals (;-)). There is just less of a certainty that a cooperation will be the ultimate recipient of those 'bucks'. The playing field would be more level.

7. bobby on May 18, 2005 01:21 PM writes...

oops! spelling of "corporation" is incorrect. (cooperation is often the exact opposite!) patently (sorry), a freudian slip..

8. Brad Hutchings on May 18, 2005 03:45 PM writes...

bobby, I have to give credit to Dana here... He proposed an idea and at least didn't venture into conclusions he knows nothing about. You on the other hand... Are you an economist? Do you hold any patents or pending? Are you an entrepreneur? Have you ever pitched a venture capitalist? Ever worked for a startup? Ever seen an IP agreement?

Here's a dirty little secret about being an inventor on a key patent for a startup (you know, one of the little companies that is now holding up the big companies according to Dana). It's pretty much job security for 3 years. Why? Because even though the IP agreement says you will cooperate in securing the patent (a long process), it is a lot easier for the lawyers to cooperate with the inventor when the inventor is still an employee than when the inventor has gone off to work for someone else.

Dana can reasonably claim that patent assignability causes macro problems, but nobody can claim that the custom isn't a giant benefit to inidvidual inventors. If you come from modest means and can command a six figure salary because your work can result in a patent plus you've got a corporation paying for the stuff you need to invent, it's all good.

9. bobby on May 19, 2005 02:48 AM writes...

Ad Hominen attack.. I must have hit a nerve.
This site (Moores Lore) is a place for people to express opinions.. presumably on a given subject. I appreciate that 'moderation' here consists of allowing a person to express whatever their view, however remotely that may apply to the original subject, with no censorship.
Brad, Your diatribe attempts to post yourself as the ultimate arbiter of who may or may not have an opinion. I am sorry you feel that way. But it aint so. You have yours, & I mine. I feel free to comment on your opinions directly.. Comment on 'you' is not allowed.
That said, (these were your 'opinions'..)
"Are you an economist?".. Are you? What kind?? Yale grad?? Harvard grad?? what about Oxford/Rhodes Scholar?? or any other particular 'branch' of economics? perhaps you're aware of this line...
"Isn't it interesting that the same people who laugh at science fiction listen to weather forecasts and economists?" Am I an Economist? No. I'll wager that many people with very aware opinions are Not economists.. I am one.
"Ever seen an IP agreement?".. There are patents & copyrights.. IP is a (mostly succesful) attempt to cloud the waters. Still, 'ever seen?', yup (before the term 'IP' was coined (or at least popular)), & turned it down.

Further.. "It's pretty much job security for 3 years".. so for 3 yrs of the term of a patent, the inventor has "pretty much" job security.. then, Boom, out the door?? Somehow I don't see that contrasting favorably with my view that an inventor who maintains control of a patent has that control (& boost to requested income/alternative source of capital) for the duration of the patent, I believe still 14 yrs (design patent).
"the IP agreement says you will cooperate in securing the patent".. in other words, not only does the inventor sign away their rights to the patent, they 'promise' to help the corporation 'get' the patent. In other words, if they find employment elsewhere, they must, presumably on their own time, help someone else benefit from their skill. And that is fair? It seems to me that '3 year' lockdown also works to restrict the inventor should they wish to move on. Basically, lost 'my' patent.. & can't leave for a new job. I can see how that helps a corporation.. not an inventor.
I'll be straight forward with you Brad. I am an 'individual rights' guy. A group, since it is nearly always stronger than an individual, must have the greater ownus on it to respect the rights of the individual. Remember.. groups need individuals (that is what they are composed of).. individuals (by definition) do not need groups.. One of the most interesting books I've read was an old copy of common business practices.. written around 1880. It was interesting to see that at that time, it was Expected that each party would try to give a bit more than they had contracted to give. Sadly, that is no more. As I posted earlier, a contract is presumed to be an agreement between equals. Anti monoploy laws & the like are (said to be) designed to ensure fairness in interactions. I say 'said to be' as it is my (& strangely enough, others) observation that the laws are bent to the powerful/groups. I find fault with that, and always will.

A bit of humor.. The CEO goes on vacation.. gone for a month.. Their secretary signs papers, the vp or whoever makes decisions etc.. (S)he comes back, has a nice tan.. tells some stories.. a week later all is 'normal'.. Now, the janitor takes a week vacation. The first day all the trash overflows.. the next day, the johns are dirty.. by the end of the week, business is at a standstill.. A bit of an exageration, true.. but, the differences in pay far exceed the differences in work done.. I learned from a man (head of Eng, I eventually took over from him) who would come in whichever door & make the rounds of the company (admitedly small, perhaps 40 people). He would greet every one of them AND carry on a conversation of what was important in their lives. His partner only talked money.. Guess who was missed when he retired.. This man (the former) knew the value of the individual and I still remember him passing on that awareness to me (altho it has taken years to grow). The individual was the inventor & should be certainly one to benefit from the patent. An absolute 'sign away' robs them of (among other things) the right to (re)negotiate with what is essentially new information. I believe that in the U.S., we are supposed to be 'unable' to sign our rights away. Unless it benefits a Corporation, I see.

the preceding is opinion - no insult intended
i'm tired.. apologies for typos/speling ;-)

bobby

10. Brad Hutchings on May 19, 2005 04:52 AM writes...

Excuse me. What is "ad hominem" about wanting to know what qualifications you have to offer your opinion? I asked the questions because I wanted to know if you're just ranting against corporations or have some insight different than many inventors in the tech industry who make very good money because their rights are assignable. Signing such agreements lets people buy nice houses, better jewelry for wives/husbands, great vacations for families, drive fast cars, etc. At any rate, I can answer yes to all questions except being a trained economist, and notice I'm not arguing the macro effects of Dana's proposal.

The time it takes to obtain a patent doesn't have to lock down inventors. My point was that it's often cheaper for an employer to keep an employee on than to can the employee if they have a patent pending that employee is involved with. An employee who is canned can make it more expensive for the employer to follow through with the patent just by having the employer work out every detail with an attorney rather than with the employee directly. That is the dirty little not-so-secret that gives patent applicants a bit of job security. If you can't find a better job in the two or three years it takes to obtain a patent, you're not trying hard enough, especially if you have a degree and a patent portfolio. Also, before signing any IP agreement (or non-compete or whatever), spend a couple hundred and have an attorney review it to tell you what is enforceable, what must be compensated to be enforceable, and what can be dragged out if your employer turns into a jerk. That's just how savvy employees play the IP game to their advantage. Again, you can make all the macro points you want and we can agree to disagree, but to say that the patent system is bad for individual inventors and only benefits corporations is keeping your head in the sand.

Get over the wide use of the term IP. There is an Undersecretary of IP in the Commerce Department. Hundreds of thousands of people have signed "IP" Agreements with employers. It is not just some term used to muddy waters. It's a key part of business today.