|
|
|
| Authored by: stegu on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 08:02 AM EDT |
Just so you know, "inventors" in the meaning
"the individuals who came up with the ideas"
often work for a large company. They often get
little or nothing in terms of money, and they
retain no rights of their own to the invention.
The company is paying the patent lawyers and
all application fees, and the company is providing
the work environment in which the ideas are
developed, so it's all entirely fair and just.
It's just that the mythic "small independent
inventor" is not really the norm. I suspect that
most patents that are issued nowadays are backed
by a large corporation. Patents are big guns for big
players, not protective shields for the little people.
The only patents out there with my name on it
(US Pats. 7,302,111, 7,646,919, 7,715,641,
I'm listed as one of four co-inventors)
earned me a modest lump sum (around $5,000,
I forget the exact amount), paid when the
patents were first applied for, in exchange for
a transfer of all patent rights to the company
(the assignee).
I don't mind, I got a great deal of fun and a
fair amount of billed consultancy hours out
of the work, and I would not ever have been able
to practise that invention myself anyway, nor
would I have come up with it on my own, but
my point is that the individual inventors behind
many patents do not benefit from them in any way
whatsoever once they are issued.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 08:15 AM EDT |
Trying to sell the idea to lawyers that patents are a Bad Thing would be like
trying to sell a cancer cure to a cancer research organisation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 08:26 AM EDT |
Maybe if the inventors had to represent themselves in patent cases and/or take
the stand to testify about the invention a lot of the trouble would go away.
Grant standing to the names listed on the patent as issued.
An inventor would know what the invention did and was intended to do before the
vague fuzzies were added for the patent documentation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 09:07 AM EDT |
Have to agree....I'm a patent holder (software no less.)
The patent was assigned to the company I worked for, for the
"consideration" of $1 (not a typo).....and the company didn't
even really pay me the lousy $1 (beyond my normal salary.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 10:03 AM EDT |
Because the
purpose of the entire patent system is for the benifit
of the inventor, so that
they can afford to keep inventing.
If
the only person who benefited from a patent was the originator(s), there would
be no reason to have a patent system. Society benefits by having the knowledge
published, which is the big reason to have patents.
If the invention is
trivial, there is nothing new which was published to benefit society.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 10:56 AM EDT |
.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
