What if you like to invent but your company wants to own all your IPs?

[Mr. Scram]

No, they aren't a waste of time, but their applicability is often misunderstood. For example, it is worth remembering that the were invented in order to spread knowledge skills and products.

They sure were, but definitely don't serve that use any more. It's indeed a tense equilibrium amongst the big boys, but it's largely maintaining the status quo and not fanning innovation and progress any more.

[Red Squirrel]

I agree that patents are a waste of time and money, along with most IP nonsense. I make my ideas public domain, unless it's something I've done for my employer.

I hate IP crap too.  Human knowledge should be free for anyone to implement if they see fit. Why restrict advancement?  Just look at the pharma industry, some medications can save lives yet they patent them so no one else is allowed to produce them for cheaper.   The common argument is that why should one company do all the R&D and everyone else able to skip that part, well they still need to do their own R&D as they still won't know all the fine details such as the manufacturing process.  They also still need to have the capital to start making it etc.  Not like it can be done overnight.

The only reason I would patent something though is so that someone else does not.  If you come up with a successful product then some company can just swoop by and patent your idea and now you're not allowed to sell your product anymore.    The issue is that typically they will patent some really obscure part that you would not even have thought of patenting though.  Like the rate at which a LED is blinking, or the color pattern, or something weird like that.  Then you have to completely redesign your product. 

[bd139]

Agreed.

I'm actually going to release the product I'm working on as open source. Hopefully someone in China will rip it off and sell clones. Then I can brand them in the UK and sell them as bona-fide originals with a mark up on Amazon with a hefty escalated price for Prime delivery

This kills dealing with the entire manufacturing and supply chain problems

[Mr. Scram]

I hate IP crap too.  Human knowledge should be free for anyone to implement if they see fit. Why restrict advancement?  Just look at the pharma industry, some medications can save lives yet they patent them so no one else is allowed to produce them for cheaper.   The common argument is that why should one company do all the R&D and everyone else able to skip that part, well they still need to do their own R&D as they still won't know all the fine details such as the manufacturing process.  They also still need to have the capital to start making it etc.  Not like it can be done overnight.

The only reason I would patent something though is so that someone else does not.  If you come up with a successful product then some company can just swoop by and patent your idea and now you're not allowed to sell your product anymore.    The issue is that typically they will patent some really obscure part that you would not even have thought of patenting though.  Like the rate at which a LED is blinking, or the color pattern, or something weird like that.  Then you have to completely redesign your product.

Well, the pharmaceutical industry is actually one industry where it is likely drugs for rarer diseases wouldn't be developed any more. The R&D companies would need to do themselves is negligible compared to the other costs that would be covered by the initial party. It's a complex situation with no easy answer.

You can't expect the industry to take care of development while also expecting they work for free or the benefit of society. Pick one, but not both.

[tggzzz]

The only reason I would patent something though is so that someone else does not.  If you come up with a successful product then some company can just swoop by and patent your idea and now you're not allowed to sell your product anymore.    The issue is that typically they will patent some really obscure part that you would not even have thought of patenting though.  Like the rate at which a LED is blinking, or the color pattern, or something weird like that.  Then you have to completely redesign your product.

That's the expensive way to achieve that end.

Much cheaper is simply to publish your scheme; then nobody else can subsequently patent it (more accurately: such a granted patent would be found invalid when they attempted to enforce it).

[tggzzz]

Agreed.

I'm actually going to release the product I'm working on as open source. Hopefully someone in China will rip it off and sell clones. Then I can brand them in the UK and sell them as bona-fide originals with a mark up on Amazon with a hefty escalated price for Prime delivery

This kills dealing with the entire manufacturing and supply chain problems

You still need to choose your licence carefully. There are websites that guide you through the process.

[tggzzz]

Human knowledge should be free for anyone to implement if they see fit. Why restrict advancement?  Just look at the pharma industry, some medications can save lives yet they patent them so no one else is allowed to produce them for cheaper. 

The first pill sold costs $1e9 (seriously), the second a few dollars.

Your task is to persuade someone to give you the money for the first pill. How are you going to do it?

[Mr. Scram]

That's the expensive way to achieve that end.

Much cheaper is simply to publish your scheme; then nobody else can subsequently patent it (more accurately: such a granted patent would be found invalid when they attempted to enforce it).

"First to file" has made that a bit more complicated.

[tggzzz]

That's the expensive way to achieve that end.

Much cheaper is simply to publish your scheme; then nobody else can subsequently patent it (more accurately: such a granted patent would be found invalid when they attempted to enforce it).

"First to file" has made that a bit more complicated.

Obviously that's the simple version! Anybody expecting an accurate full discussion on a forum such as this is, um, optimistic

[james_s]

I also make my own creations open source, even if I wanted to sell one commercially there seems to be a relatively small overlap between people who want to buy a ready to use product and people who want to build one from scratch. If you give away the source, most people will still just buy one ready to use.

Then there is the issue of unauthorized copies being sold, if someone wants to copy and sell your product they'll do so whether you open source it or not. If the idea is valuable enough for that to be an issue then it's valuable enough for somebody to invest in reverse engineering it or just designing something themselves that performs the same function.

[cdev]

If the plans are open source, that forces you to price it competitively and not try to overdo it profit wise. That's why TPTB hate it.

They identify so deeply with "optimizing the value in supply chains"  that they aren't willing to even consider a world without it.

[Red Squirrel]

I don't know if this would work for employer related patents ex: they might still own what you make on your own time, even outside of patent law, but this may be of interest: http://www.defensivepublications.org/

Basically it's a place you can publish plans and it will make it public domain but also protect you from it being patented, so you don't have to worry about getting sued if someone decides to patent your invention.

Downside is lot of employers have agreements that they own everything you make, regardless of patents, so this probably won't be able to protect you from that.

From looks of the site it seems rather targeted to Linux though, but it may work for other stuff too.

[Zero999]

I hate IP crap too.  Human knowledge should be free for anyone to implement if they see fit. Why restrict advancement?  Just look at the pharma industry, some medications can save lives yet they patent them so no one else is allowed to produce them for cheaper.   The common argument is that why should one company do all the R&D and everyone else able to skip that part, well they still need to do their own R&D as they still won't know all the fine details such as the manufacturing process.  They also still need to have the capital to start making it etc.  Not like it can be done overnight.

The only reason I would patent something though is so that someone else does not.  If you come up with a successful product then some company can just swoop by and patent your idea and now you're not allowed to sell your product anymore.    The issue is that typically they will patent some really obscure part that you would not even have thought of patenting though.  Like the rate at which a LED is blinking, or the color pattern, or something weird like that.  Then you have to completely redesign your product.

Well, the pharmaceutical industry is actually one industry where it is likely drugs for rarer diseases wouldn't be developed any more. The R&D companies would need to do themselves is negligible compared to the other costs that would be covered by the initial party. It's a complex situation with no easy answer.

You can't expect the industry to take care of development while also expecting they work for free or the benefit of society. Pick one, but not both.

I think there's already a problem with getting drug companies to develop drugs for rare diseases. The solution is the non-profit sector stepping in. It also makes sense for countries with publicly funded healthcare to fund drug development, since it will cut costs, in the long run.  It's a myth that patents are necessary for all drug development.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4591870/
https://www.chemistryworld.com/careers/non-profit-pharma/6619.article

[cdev]

Drug companies lie a LOT about their alleged costs and profits, especially to Americans and trade officials.  See

http://www.pharmamyths.net/_market_spiral_pricing_of_cancer_drugs__120860.htm  and especially this paper in BMJ- the best one I have seen on how wildly dishonest the drug companies assertions are:

http://www.pharmamyths.net/_foreign_free_riders_drive_up_us_drug_prices____myth__96359.htm

Most of their spending is on ads and lobbying.

I used to know a CEO of that rarity, a progressive drug company. She had a lot to say about this.

They should NOT be given any additional patent rights. Its a crime what they are doing.

The UK government deliberately sabotaged its own NHS's pricing deals with drug companies, according to an NHS accountant I was exchanging messages with a few years ago. WTF?

[Mr. Scram]

I think there's already a problem with getting drug companies to develop drugs for rare diseases. The solution is the non-profit sector stepping in. It also makes sense for countries with publicly funded healthcare to fund drug development, since it will cut costs, in the long run.  It's a myth that patents are necessary for all drug development.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4591870/
https://www.chemistryworld.com/careers/non-profit-pharma/6619.article

I makes sense to still patent it if you do the research with community money, just so you retain some control over who produces it. There's nothing preventing you from farming the patent out to a number of companies.

However, we unfortunately see the opposite happening right now. Research is expected to be marketable ever more and fundamental research isn't easily funded any more, if at all. It probably boils down to governments not having the money to spend on the research and needing to see a return.

[tggzzz]

I makes sense to still patent it if you do the research with community money, just so you retain some control over who produces it.

Last I heard patent holders were required to licence patents under "reasonable" terms - that's the whole raison d'etre of patents.

That makes it difficult to allow X to use the patent and refuse Y the use of the patent.

[Mr. Scram]

Last I heard patent holders were required to licence patents under "reasonable" terms - that's the whole raison d'etre of patents.

That makes it difficult to allow X to use the patent and refuse Y the use of the patent.

As far as I know that only applies to "vital" patents, like those required for making a smartphone. That prevents a few companies locking up a market with ubiquitous technology. I haven't ever seen that applied to specific drug patents.

[tggzzz]

Last I heard patent holders were required to licence patents under "reasonable" terms - that's the whole raison d'etre of patents.

That makes it difficult to allow X to use the patent and refuse Y the use of the patent.

As far as I know that only applies to "vital" patents, like those required for making a smartphone. That prevents a few companies locking up a market with ubiquitous technology. I haven't ever seen that applied to specific drug patents.

Shades of grey. Lots of lawyer's fees.

[Sceptre]

But even if legally I'm okay, I wonder if the company will hate me...

Whether they hate you or not, I suspect that filing this patent application will jeopardize your employment.  They likely extended an offer to you based on the expertise you demonstrated relating to a product that they want to develop and market.  From what you have written, it appears that protecting what you consider your IP will also encumber that expertise, which may mean you are no longer worth the compensation that they offered.  In practical terms, what are you going to do? Refuse tasks that you consider to be infringing? Make threats if you observe coworkers designing/coding using 'your' IP?

...if I later disclose it to them...

If they are a Dow 30 company, I expect that their patent lawyers are monitoring filings around all technologies of interest, and it won't take them long to connect the dots.  They will have figured out what they want to do about you well before you report for your first workday.

...license it/or partner with them...

In my experience, corporations have employees, and they have partners, but never the same persons.

Also note that, separate from the IP agreement, there will probably also be an agreement to comply with all policies and procedures in your Employee Handbook (or some such).  In general, Rule #1 is "don't do anything that is not in the Company's best interests."  If there is a Conflict of Interest section, that Rule #1 is "don't compete with the Company." (One such agreement I'm familiar with prohibited employees from owning stock in any companies that were considered competitors.)  Soliciting funds on Kickstarter to protect/promote/develop your IP could be considered as competition.

Your specific circumstances may render the above null and void - perhaps the Company considers you a purple unicorn and will accommodate your demands (which is why I used plenty of weasel words rather than making definitive assertions).  But I haven't read any such indications.  In addition to talking to IP experts, I suggest that you seek out some profs (with industry experience) in the business school and ask them whether they think your Dow 30 company will play ball with you if you file.

[paulca]

Best option is always to walk away from predatory clauses like that.

Did that when a company trying to recruit me sold me the dream of unlimited holidays, flexible working hours, etc. etc.  Then handed me a contract and demanded I sign the waver for overtime limits (excess of 60 hours average over 6 weeks).  And... a flexibility clause on EVERY single term in the contract.  I handed it back to them, said I was offended they asked me to sign it and what would be the point since it states they can change every single clause without notification and at the company discretion.   Damn American companies.  We have employment rights in the UK (for now) you ball bags!

Often you can however strike a deal at the time if a hobby turns into a money spinning project, if it doesn't compete with your company they will often give you a legally binding exclusion (or permission) letter to keep the IP for your personal project.

[bd139]

I make sure I never use my signature when signing the employer's side of the employment contract 

Actually this is why I prefer contracting. Getting money out of the bastards is an art though, one I'm still working on.

[paulca]

I make sure I never use my signature when signing the employer's side of the employment contract 

Careful... isn't that fraud/deception?

Actually this is why I prefer contracting. Getting money out of the bastards is an art though, one I'm still working on.

Contracting sounds great, I am currently working in a secondment and the daily rate my company are racking in is around £700 a day.  I get less than a quarter of that.  However, when the proverbial hits the fan I have seen a company suspend all contracts overnight.  100s of people were told to go home the next day.  It was 2 weeks to Christmas.  Go home, no pay, no job, read your contract. 

Similarly when the credit crunch hit a lot of companies paniced and suspended or terminated contracts all over the place.

Then again I have been made redundant twice in my career.  Mostly due to buy outs, mergers and the like.  Buy the company, trash the competing product, sack half the staff etc.  Although if you have been with the company for a while and their redundancy package is nice it can be quite lucrative.

Friend of mine claimed he moved to New Zealand during that time as the contracts dried up.... turns out he actually got a girl pregnant, had 2 years back log of maintenance fees and the flight to New Zealand was cheaper.

[bd139]

Contracts are only enforced in court. Doesn't matter until then and at that point the only metric is a sample signature. This tips the contract towards voided as no party can be held accountable unless you present your copy which is in force. You have to be a bastard to make money unfortunately.

Contracting is hell. So much paperwork, but you'll see much more of the money. I see 58% of the current daily rate after all expenses, tax, corp tax, insurance, PAYE etc. Also you have to be your own accountant as they're all crap and dodge IR35 and all that stuff. WRT to termination, always work on fixed terms and only min 6 months. Plan not to work 3 months a year (this hasn't happened yet but might). Have people queuing up; sometimes it is better to not renew and take another contract or play a couple of people off against each other. Agents are all shit; make them work hard for you.

I've had some quite big wins as well where I'll be hired for 3 months and the task will only take a month. Clients don't want to pay up for the 2 months they overestimated but if you wave the legal stick at them, they will pay up. They'll also come back to you later and do exactly the same thing again because the market is so dried up in certain places