tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post681833461258882007..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Too big to pay? Employee-inventor compensation in the Court of Appeal Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-76537045522745947552017-07-03T19:33:25.800+01:002017-07-03T19:33:25.800+01:00Patent should belong to Shanks. He was not employe...Patent should belong to Shanks. He was not employed to develop a glucose meter. He did it in his own time & expense!<br /><br />Then, Unilvers DELAYS AND INCOMPETENCE cost many sales.<br /><br />Finally, if they want an 'outstanding benefit clause', (no justification for it, AFAICS) then common sense says the measured benefit should be compared to the BENEFIT OF THE AVERAGE EMPLOYEE! NOT THE TOTAL FOR THE WHOLE BLOODY COMPANY! Also, Unilvers DELAYS AND INCOMPETENCE should be factored into benefit calcs.<br /><br />Idiot hearing officer. How does he sleep at night, screwing inventors like this? Reminds me of the hounding to death of EH Armstrong in the US.<br /><br />Intellectual Property Rightful Owners Action Group.<br />reform@iproag.org<br /><br /><br /><br />Stuarthttp://www.iproag.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-11167689050811082032017-02-16T09:27:09.834+00:002017-02-16T09:27:09.834+00:00re:Kant
That is not the point. One of the princi...re:Kant<br /><br />That is not the point. One of the principle foundations of the patent system is a reward for inventive merit <i>per se</i>. The <b>absolute</b> value of my invention on the market is irrespective of the size and nature of the company that markets it.<br /><br />There is no doubt that the relative worth of say, £20 million, is different to a small Biotech start-up compared to a global multinational - but at the same time, I'm almost certain that the multinational will not just ignore an extra £20 million in the bank. Regardless, the fact that something is valued that much clearly shows, ultimately, a benefit to and demand from the public, classifying it as a worthwhile invention. What right does a third party have to then decide on the basis of poorly worded legislation that because of the nature of the employer (which I will argue has no bearing on the inventive skill shown by the inventor(s)), the inventors should somehow not be rewarded for their contribution to society? <br /><br />Also, to think that working for a large multinational guarantees job security clearly shows that you have no experience in the modern science industry.trin1728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-46096692441642093552017-02-14T14:19:23.277+00:002017-02-14T14:19:23.277+00:00This perpetuates a general public impression that ...This perpetuates a general public impression that large companies benefit disproportionately from our current IP system. Small companies are required to reward inventors for an outstanding invention, whereas large companies are not required to reward inventors for the same invention. I accept that the size of the large company may contribute to the invention's commercial success, so there may be an argument that the % reward should be smaller (inversely proportionate to the size of the company?), but surely not that there should be no reward whatsoever?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-57266443468352786962017-02-10T14:21:42.220+00:002017-02-10T14:21:42.220+00:00I think this case has been running for about 10 ye...I think this case has been running for about 10 years and been through six hearings (IPO, High Court & Court of Appeal both on a preliminary point and then the main issue). I wonder what that has cost - as much as the inventors were awarded in Kelly v GE Healthcare? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-5603647166017396572017-02-09T12:20:27.333+00:002017-02-09T12:20:27.333+00:00I guess that the legislator may have intended that...I guess that the legislator may have intended that where a small entity derives a large contribution from a patent, that may be ascribed fully to the inventive activity resulting in the patent, deserving of a special reward, but where a large entity derives a large benefit, that may be ascribed to "building on the shoulders of giants", access to research resources, marketing channels, brand power, legal fighting funds and the like, so the contribution to the large benefit is proportionately smaller. Componoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-41115912057469883772017-02-09T10:52:25.036+00:002017-02-09T10:52:25.036+00:00What is not fair? As an engineer/scientist you can...What is not fair? As an engineer/scientist you can take a job with a small new-co "at the cutting edge" where your invention might become a world beater and be worth millions to you or you can take a job at a large multinational and accept that in return for a relatively secure position, the statutory reward for your invention might be somewhat lower.Kantnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-71278094049632931702017-02-09T09:41:50.598+00:002017-02-09T09:41:50.598+00:00It's time this law was changed, to remove that...It's time this law was changed, to remove that "size and nature of the employer's undertaing" wording, which is clearly not at all fair.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com