Employee Patent Compensations? 89
Anonymous Coward asks: "My employer has recently filed a patent application for something I invented. As compensation I am being given the statutory $1 for the assignment and a shiny brass plaque if the patent(s) is awarded. Is this typical for North American companies? I did sign a no compensation and automatic assignment type employment contract and while I was willing to accept that technically, I'm owed nothing, this strikes me as cheap, greedy, and backward thinking on my employers part. I've Google'd and read and this action seems archaic, am I wrong and just full of myself? Your thoughts please!"
My thoughts... (Score:5, Funny)
But that's the genious of it (Score:1, Funny)
You're wrong, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Motivations (Score:3, Interesting)
(Disregard the above if your company is non-for-profit, employee-owned, or determined to get sued by stockholders.)
Re:Motivations (Score:2)
Re:Motivations (Score:3, Informative)
They should give more than the minimum to give this very valuable employee solid motivation to continue his fine work. Nikola Tesla came to the U.S. to work for Edison, who made life unpleasant by failing to reward Tesla for his excellent work. Tesla eventually left and invented [mall-usa.com] A/C dynamos for Westinghouse, which helped him defeat Edison in the electricty market. Eventually making the Westinghouse corporation became so powerful J.P. Morgan and G.E. eventually gave up competi
Re:Motivations (Score:2)
Why would they give you more than the minimum required, if you agreed to that minimum? Does it gain them anything? Are you honestly going to work less now because they didn't give you an unnecessary bonus?
Let's flip this around. If the company sees no need to give more than the minimum required, then why should the employee see any need to produce more than the minimum required? I mean, if I knew that my company wasn't going to give me bupkus for coming up with something worthwhile enough to patent, I
It is somewhat greedy (Score:2, Funny)
Just a number. Doesn't mean I'd be any richer than you, after paying taxes and all, but at least I can buy my own shiny new plaque.
Re:It is somewhat greedy (Score:1)
Watching out for yourself includes making ethical decisions. Two wrongs don't make a right. Two wrongs do however help crack away at the foundation of successful corporations.
Re:It is somewhat greedy (Score:1)
not exactly standard... (Score:5, Informative)
I wouldn't lose sleep over the bonus. Instead, remember to mention your patent at your next performance review. Even if you don't get a bonus from it directly it may be a useful bargaining chip for future compensation.
Re:not exactly standard... (Score:4, Funny)
Any you wonder why IT/IS jobs are going overses! Bunch of gready SOBs!!!
Re:not exactly standard... (Score:2)
Poll: 99% of the people think you made this up.
Re:not exactly standard... (Score:2)
Re:not exactly standard... (Score:2)
percentage of Israeli citizens also
supported the attack.
Re:not exactly standard... (Score:1)
Re:not exactly standard... (Score:2)
need for even a fleeting connection with
verifiable factual reality, or any sort
of substantive research in order to make
an extreme claim. It's quite remarkable.
Re:not exactly standard... (Score:2)
Or how about using a helicopter to fire rockets into a car carrying a three-year-old child?
Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't condone the killing of civilians, in fact in general I don't condone killing at all. But neither side in this conflict is in the right, and the sooner people rea
It depends on what gets patented (Score:2)
Close, but no plaque (Score:1, Informative)
Where I work, it's $1000 per co-inventor on filing and $1000 when it issues. If there are more than 4 co-inventors they split $4000.
But no shiny plaque. ;-)
ACone dollar!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:one dollar!!! (Score:1)
What I wouldn't have done for a pile of stock options.
All we got was the bag the stock options came in.
Re:one dollar!!! (Score:2)
What I wouldn't have done for the bag the stock options came in.
All we got was the shaft.
Reward Program (Score:1, Redundant)
Hi, I'm Darl McBride. And here at SCO, we Think Different (tm).
Re:Companies are tyrannies (Score:3, Informative)
More than 50% of working Americans own stock in publically traded companies. That stock usually comes with voting rights for the owners. This makes companies both owned by the workers, and democratic.
your sig (Score:1)
At least, not until the word, "verb," got verbed...
sorry, i had to...
sol
Re:your sig (Score:1)
20 seconds.... la la la la la wheee
Voting stock makes it democratic? HAHAHAHAHA! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Voting stock makes it democratic? HAHAHAHAHA! (Score:2)
I have to disagree a little. On point 3: Board members in all companyes I hold stock in must have a majority of votes, so if 50% of share holders vote against a director, that director will not serve on the board. It is a definate problem that shareholder proposals for directors do not get on the main ballot for most companies, but I know of exceptions to that rule. (A co-op I belong to is proposeing to change to entirely self-nominated canidates, already anyone who wants it is put on the ballot)
As for p
Re:Companies are tyrannies (Score:2)
How do you equate the democratic principle of one vote, one person with as one vote for each share of voting stock you've purchased?
Democratic reform of boards of directors is actually a serious issue that the SEC is currently looking into. It's bad for companies to have the kind of incestuous boards they cu
I apologize (Score:1)
ever read.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
Ask Slashdot: I'm not a business major, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet you still left out something very important - you invented it on company time (or even used a little bit of company time) and you've been on the payroll since before concieved of the invention, and , in fact, you were employed in order to benefit the company - including anything you invent while working for the company.
You have been paid for, are being paid for, and will likely continue to be paid for the invention - it's called a salary or paycheck.
I'm sorry if you didn't understand the terms of your employment.
Besides, you can get the answer to your question from Google, which will show you that it's a fairly commonly asked question
As far as what is typical in the industry - typically the inventor gets nothing but name recognition. If the invention makes the company a million, they tend to treat you better, but it still shows as zip on your paycheck (except your raises may be slightly higher than usual for awhile)
You might be able to work something out if you are a contractor and can show that you developed the invention for general use in your contracting business, and not for this specific client, but then you get to be the cost bearer of obtaining the patent, and likely (as with the vast majority of inventions) you will never recoup those costs.
It's better to put the invention down on your resume, and work it from the angle of, "I can do good things for your company" rather than trying to say with your current employer, "Hey, where's my piece of the pie?". Likely your piece of the pie will be somewhere outside the office very shortly thereafter.
-Adam
Re:Ask Slashdot: I'm not a business major, but... (Score:2)
What I find interesting is the way "invention" and "patent" seem to make people think they are doing something different than others. Most knowledge workers are financially compensated in return for using their brains and the company's resources to create something of value. In this case the company feels that the best way of
You misunderstand, I think. (Score:2)
Re:You misunderstand, I think. (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as I'm concerned, the difference between being a full-time employee and a contractor boils down to compensation. Salaried employees trade a higher hourly rate for a fixed salary and additional non-monetary but quanitifiable benefits. Also, the government treats you differently for tax purposes. Period.
Anything else is above and beyond the call. The company will most likely lay the employee off in a heartbeat if they feel the need, and the employee will jump ship at a moment's notice for better pay or a more interesting job. Companies have forgotten how much more valuable a properly-trained and experienced senior employee can be, and employees have forgotten the less tangible benefits of staying with a firm for an extended period of time.
Like almost everyone else in modern American business, no real attention is being paid to the long-term. Only short-term gains are considered. An employee will bail for a 10% increase in pay, while a company will treat people like a commodity and swap them around and dump them for the slightest reason.
Unfortunately, in this climate, intangibles don't count for much, because you can't depend on loyalty being rewarded with loyalty. The companies are to blame when the concept of downsizing and commoditization of employees because more important than treating people like people. Now the shoe's on the other foot and employees aren't giving loyalty either, because they don't expect they will get it.
Unfortunately, the culture now is very much a mercenary culture, and it is stuck in a vicious circle being fed by things like frequent job changes, outsource overseas, the increasing reliance on temp workers, etc.
So, while the company doesn't _owe_ you anything more than a handshake and maybe a plaque (in addition to your salary), if they are wise, they will cultivate your obvious value, and you, in turn, should reciprocate, building a stronger and more valuable relationship.
In my case, I have at times, not shown as much loyalty as I maybe should have, because I am not a patient person, and am unwilling to suffer through a project of a year or more on the chance that the next one will be something I actually want to do. By the same token, I have been lied to, indirectly at least, and treated very unfairly on more than one occasion. The biggest problem I have had, as a long time (15+ years) expert developer that does not want to go into management, is being put in a situation more appropriate for a junior-level programmer, where I cannot utilize my expertise in a way that provides interest to me nor maximizes the company's benefit of my long years of experience. In my current job, I have literally been told nmy work is too good. If every piece of what I develop is not understandable by every programmer (at a shop that is light-weight on progammer talent), then it shouldn't be done that way. Given the impressive resume that I provide, wiuth its emphasis on improving the status quo, and developing sophisticated tools and solutions, it seems rather dishonest to state that I am a good match for the position, because after almost 6 months, I know I clearly am not. If and when I find alternative work, I will take it immediately, despite the fact that I hate to leave after such a short time, and yet, if the culture of the company (for which software development is of peripheral importance, as evidenced by the quotes "We are a bunch of hacks. This is a garage shop." They do brute-force, copy-and-paste work which would have looked archaic 10 years ago) had been described to me honestly, I would have realized it was a bad match up front. One thing I can be honest about is that I get bored easily and I am neither happy or productive when I am bored. I don't think it's fair to hire someone with 10+ years of C++ experience as a C++ p
Re:You misunderstand, I think. (Score:2)
Well written, but I would differ on this point. From the perspective of an employee, I and likely most others haven't actually forgotten or don't know about the benefits of staying with a firm for an extended period of time, it's just that those benefits have all but dried up. I hear of a few
Re:Ask Slashdot: I'm not a business major, but... (Score:2)
Companys aquire lots of patents that are never turned into products. They just aquire them for the same reason a porcupine grows quills: to throw them in a predator's face (or maybe they make them look good to a potential mate). For such purposes they are worth something but not very much.
Idea people are often like to overvalue ideas (thus an obsession with patents, NDAs etc). Ideas are important,
Re:Ask Slashdot: I'm not a business major, but... (Score:1)
So we've sold out... what could be better? (Score:1)
But is this the way it should work? I'd say (judging from what I've read, and the comments here) that it's pretty common. Is this the best thing for all parties involved? I'm not talking about a "Do they work that way now?" or even a "What can we change?" point of view. The first has been answer
Re:So we've sold out... what could be better? (Score:2)
You say that as though the employee has some rights to the IP that he/she has to give up. This is the problem - the employee owns none of the "intellectual property" that they are being paid to produce for the company.
In our current age, ideas are important, not people. People produce ideas that can be bought, sold, traded, and sued for. The people themselves are but producers - once the milk is given to the machine, the cow has no recour
Re:Ask Slashdot: I'm not a business major, but... (Score:2)
That's not been my experience (at least not theoretically -- my last employer filed two patents for things I invented, and then fired me for no reason).
Many high-tech companies at least really want their employees to invent
Name recognition - moral rights? (Score:2)
Does the legal concept of moral rights - ie, (as I understand it) acknowledgement of creatorship, if not legal ownership of an item - extend to inventions?
AFAIK moral rights have been introduced (via legislation) for creative works such as books, paintings or screenplays, but I don't know about non-creative works.
Re:Ask Slashdot: I'm not a business major, but... (Score:2)
--rhad
Re:Ask Slashdot: I'm not a business major, but... (Score:2)
This uninformed B.S. Even if it says as much in some contracts. A contract must be fair and equatable, if the inventor does not receive something for their patent, the contract is unfair. Unfair contracts are unenforcable and any court will throw out such contracts.
1) A patent belongs to an individual not a corporation, Companies cannot invent and cannot own patents. People invent things, not companies. The company cannot simply register the
Re:Ask Slashdot: I'm not a business major, but... (Score:1)
Standard Practice (Score:4, Informative)
Some companies are more generous, offering a few shares of stock or whatever.
I know in Europe you have a somewhat better situation, especially if the invention is worth a LOT of money in the long run, but how far that goes I don't know.
I never thought it was a big deal in my job - generating these things was what I was being paid for, and in reality very few patents ever turn out to be commercially valuable anyway.
Re:Standard Practice (Score:2)
But hey, my employee has paid me numerous bux for my patent. In my opinion, the r
Re:Standard Practice (Score:1, Informative)
See this pathetic moron ? He just said " It's a standard part of US employment law that if you are indeed an employee rather than an independent contractor that any intellecual property that you generate does in fact belong lock stock and barrel to your employer." Of course he probably meant to say that is was standard part of Copyright Law to treat "work
Re:Standard Practice (Score:2)
Who is stupider than a pathetic moron then? Truly it must be yourself for asserting such nonsense.
Without a contract an employer can assert any number of reasons that it might own the invention. One is the "hired to invent" assertion which gives the employer the
Clients. (Score:3, Interesting)
He's got plaques to prove it, but that's about it. And he seemed pretty damn proud to have those, and loved explaining when I asked about them.
*Shrug* Was pretty cool to me...they don't *have* to give you anything.
My compensation (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm going to start disclosing a whole bunch of obvious stuff. Not that I necessarily want them patented, but just so our company has a legal record of their being implemented or used. I still can't get over Phillips being granted a patent for something my company had shipped five years prior to their filing. Our solution to the problem was to roll over and cross license our own stuff.
Re:My compensation (Score:1)
Contractors aren't real people (Score:2, Informative)
So... don't expect anything for a patent unless you have an agreement guaranteeing compensation. Companies
Fees (Score:2)
IBM's policy (Score:3, Interesting)
first patent: $1500 when it's filed, another $500 if the patent is awarded
any patents after that: $750, +$500 if patent awarded.
Every 4 patents you hit a "plateau" and get a bonus $1250 or so on top of everything else.
From the posts in this forum, sounds like that's actually a pretty nice system.
Things people have received (Score:1)
it all depends on your employment contract (Score:1)
Cisco granted money upon filing, money upon grant, provided you were still with the company when it gets granted. Ditto for the plaque as well, I think.
Consider yourself lucky! (Score:2)
For my two patent applications for inventions I created while working for a company associated with the size "Big" and the colour "Blue", which they've filed in two countries, I was permently laid off.
The unnamed company in question had (at the time at least) a policy where inventors were awarded $2500 US for each successful patent. When I was "surplussed", they decided not to pay up. After making a fuss, they finally decided to pay me $1500 US for both (that is, $1500 US in total).
So count yourself l
You OWE them the patent! (Score:3, Informative)
Further, did you pay the 10K to 20K dollars to file the patent? Yeah - the patent itself doesn't cost that much (more like $2k I think) but the lawyers that wrote it did.
So - what did you have on the line versus the company. You received your normal compensation and the company through in say another $10K on top of your compensation to receive the patent. Seems to me they have a moral right to it too!
Now - if you did something on your own dime, and the company tried claiming that as well - this is another discussion all together. That doesn't seem to be the case in the initial query though. I happen to live in CA - with all it's OTHER faults (and there are so so many) CA does have a law on the books since around 1980 that if I develop the idea on my own time with my own resources, then NDA or not, I own it.
That's my two cents worth.
Fancy dinner award ceremony (Score:2)
Every year they have a fancy sit down dinner for the patent holders, with the presentation of the awards for that years patent awards.
Other than that, I'd say recognition should be in the form of the paycheck.
Assigned ? (Score:2)
If you already assigned the patent to the company, you are in a weak position, and are relying on the companies good will, the best you can hope for is raising it at your annual review like you would any acheivement.
If you have not made the assignment you find your self in a good position of negotiating with the company from a position of strength. DO NOT sign over the rights to the patent. Consult a patent agent/lawyer.
You can nego
The right way (Score:2)
Don't do it for free! (Score:1, Insightful)
My experience at Sun and HP (Score:1, Informative)
At Sun, I think it was $250/$500/$1000 when I was there, and at HP it's $175/$875/$1750. Nothing like the $1 foolishness you have.
It's not about any particular patent, but the numb
Practice varies (Score:2)
Well (Score:2)
I for one despise patents, mainly the fact that they can prevent you from using an idea, or punish you after the fact, e
Employee patents ... (Score:1)
On the other hand.... (Score:1)
I signed a similar agreement (Score:2)
They are paying you a salary for your work, aren't they?