unless it has recently changed (which it may have, there has been a move to make u.s. patent law consistent with that of most other countries) a corporation can indeed be issued a patent in it's name, rather than in the name of the employees responsible independent of eventual ownership or license as agreed upon in advance. I have no objection to patent rights being sold to corporations (though only allowing one company to use the substance of a patent is contrary to the principles of free trade and innovation). as for voluntary agreements, this is the rub. for many technical people entering into such an agreement in return for employment is not optional as it has become common practice amongst all major companies (at least here in the u.s.), thus if a technical person wishes to be employed in a technical field they do not have any real power to negotiate this point of their employment. i have a problem with this. i particularly have a problem when it is applied to non-technical employees, patents that may be devised long after working for a given company or which do not have any connection to that companies business or the technical work the employee has done for them. =20 i would argue that this is in fact does hamper innovation by substantially removing much of the incentive to invent by substantially and often fully striping the inventor of the profits derived even when said patent was developed without resources of the company they may work for. If an individual or group agree to work towards patents and that a given party or employer will provide resources towards the realization of a patent being issued or developed then i have no problem with some equitable agreement as to the ownership and licensing of the patents produced in that effort. =20 however, if i work for an electronics company, as an EE, and happen to have other technical interest outside work and pursue those without company support i don't consider it reasonable that the employer should automatically have any interest in or right to those patents, nor do i think it is reasonable to require such a contractual agreement as a condition for employment. i do think it is reasonable in the case of patents in the field the engineer or other employee is being employed in, provided that they be non-exclusive and that there is some guarantee of reasonable compensation beyond the normal salary, again particularly in the case of non-technical employees. for instance, if i work for a semiconductor company as a chemist, and happen to also have an interest in biology and develop a new antibiotic on my own (which is possible up to the point of clinical trials etc. where outside financing would certainly be needed and a partnership formed with some company or group of companies or individuals) i don't see it as reasonable for said semiconductor maker to have any automatic ownership interest in said antibiotic or other medical patent unless it is directly related to the professional employment and projects worked on as part of that employment. "voluntary" agreements cease to be voluntary when all or most companies in a given business sector require them as a term of employment and the individual ceases to have bargaining power over those terms. the fact that a practice is wide spread or that people routinely subject themselves to it does not imply that a practice is ethical or economically correct. this is one of the "dangers" of allowing multinational companies to grow without bounds, it accrues to them power simply because of their size without regard to what is ethically reasonable or in the best interest of the individual, the economy, the business sector, or society at large. in my specific case, does any one think it reasonable that the local electricity supplier should demand full ownership of any patent granted to me during my life, no matter how long after their employment or what field that patent is in, in exchange for a job reading utility meters?=20 surely the hourly compensation for this job is grossly inadequate to make such an arraignment equitable. non the less, people need to work, the scarcity of jobs motivates many to ignore this inequitable requirement in order to obtain short term employment. this agreement completely removes any economic incentive they might otherwise have to ever invent any thing, for the rest of their lives no matter what the field of endeavor. clearly this is not equitable or reasonable, and i seriously question how "voluntary" such an agreement is and whether it should be allowed by law in such a clearly inequitable case. =20 as i said, in some jobs, i can see some fairness in there being some agreement about patents developed during the term of employment, for a fixed time period there after, or having directly to do with what one has worked on for a given employer, however i see these agreements becoming ever broader with little if any additional compensation going to the employee and i would argue that this does hamper innovation as well as being fundamentally immoral. yes, if i work for hp, as a product development engineer, then it is reasonable for me to agree that they will hold any patents derived from my work or by me with some small limitation, but in this job position it is expected specifically as a part of the job that the employee will devise patentable ideas (it's my understanding that in many positions such as this failing to come up with a patentable idea within 1 year of employment will cause dismissal, which i don't see as unreasonable) as this is clearly part of the job description and will result, presumably in increased salary or other compensation as well as job retention. =20 where it becomes absurd and unreasonable is when the same standards are applied to lower level workers who's job security clearly does not depend on producing patents and where any such patent produced for the company would go well beyond the expected job performance and yet the employee is not compensated at all or significantly and may not even expect increased job security for their effort on behalf of the employer or when it is done entirely on their own behalf and at their own expense and yet the employer gobbles up all of the rewards. it is "your business" when two parties enter into a "voluntary" agreement when those 2 parties have grossly different amounts of power in the contractual relationship and when this agreement harms society at large by hampering advancement or depriving the individual of proper compensation as it will not be limited to the two parties involved, but rather will involve many, many employees over time at many different companies and becomes a gross distortion of what is fair and equitable as it will eventually affect you and as the individuals involved will in fact want outside involvement of the greater society to attempt to equalize the powers of the parties involved, as in the setting of an equitable minimum wage so that people can not be grossly exploited and under compensated simply because they do not have the power or any real choice other than to give in to such unfair agreements. when all parties involved feel that an agreement is fair and enter into it truly voluntarily then i agree, it is no one else's business, but when one class of party is consistently victimized and coercerced into unreasonable and unfair agreements then it is in societies interest to intervene. this is one of the main duties of the legal system, though it is obviously far from perfect or fair in itself. in the specific, narrow case you suggest i would agree, it is not my business nor that of any uninvolved party. however that assumes that something of value is traded for something of roughly equivalent value, which is often not the case. indeed i have a patent idea that i believe would be worth a great deal, and i would be more than happy to agree that a given party would receive significant ownership of it in exchange for financing or other assistance, i would not agree that it should belong to the local power company just because they may have once allowed me to read meters for them and was paid accordingly for that unrelated job function. that to me is a theft and a betrayal, and most definitely hampers innovation. Olin Lathrop wrote: >=20 > Philip Stortz wrote: > > at the same time i think it's appalling that in the u.s. companies ca= n > > claim full ownership of any patent an employee comes up with. >=20 > First, they can't. Patents are issued to individuals only. However th= e > patent rights are property that can be assigned to other entities, incl= uding > corporations. >=20 > Second, I don't see how it's my business if two parties voluntarily ent= er > into an agreement where each does something for the other. If A pays B= and > in return B agrees that all intellectual property developed by B belong= s to > A, why should you care? It seems silly to disallow this when both A an= d B > feel it's to their advantage. It is exactly these kinds of deals that = drive > innovation and make the world work. ------ --=20 =93it is possible to fool all the people all the time=F3when government a= nd press cooperate.=94-George Seldes, 1938 _______________________________________________ http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist