Ask Slashdot: Handling Patented IP In a Job Interview? 224
ZahrGnosis writes I'm in the midst of a rather lengthy job interview; something I haven't done for some time as I've worked as a contract employee with a much lower barrier to entry for years. Recently, I've started patenting some inventions that are applicable to my industry. One hope is that the patents look good to the prospective employer on a resume, but I don't want them to take the existing IP for granted as part of the deal. I'm worried I have the wrong attitude, however. My question is, how should I treat licensing of the patent as a topic with respect to the topic of my employment? Should I build the use of my patented ideas into my salary? Should I explicitly refuse to implement my patented IP for the company without a separate licensing fee? If I emphasize the patent during the interviews without the intent to give them the IP for free, is that an ethical lapse — a personal false advertising? At the same time, when I work for a company I feel they should get the benefit of my full expertise... am I holding back something I shouldn't by not granting a de-facto license while I work for them? I perceive a fine balance between being confrontational and helpful, while not wanting to jeopardize the job prospect nor restrict my ability to capitalize on my invention. Thoughts?
You guessed it: It depends (Score:2, Insightful)
For each job it will be different.
How good is the salary already?
How much of the value of hiring you is your porfolio, and how much is your blood and sweat value-add?
If Nasa wants to hire you as a $50k per year janitor so they can use your warp field equations, it's different than if Amazon wants you to be their Cheif Architect and incidently likes your 5-prop drone patent.
Re:You guessed it: It depends (Score:5, Insightful)
For each job it will be different.
No, and no.
Patented IP belongs to the patent holder. Employment is a different issue altogether. Under normal circumstances, they are legally completely separate issues... so why would you want to mess that up?
If you want employment, make an employment agreement. If you want to sell, lease, rent, or royalty-license your patents, then do that.
Why would you want to confuse these things and mix them up?
Re:You guessed it: It depends (Score:4, Insightful)
It's worse than that. If the company you apply for a job at has any interest in the patents, chances are that they will not offer you a job.
The problem is that you selling/licensing patents to them while an employee will easily be seen as a conflict of interest.
If they want you and the patents, I believe they may require you to sign over any and all IP to them as terms of employment, compensated by a signing bonus.
Patents, employment, and invention (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that would depend on whether you were producing new inventions while in their employ, or simply licensing preexisting patents to them. I don't see any conflict of interest in the latter.
In fact that brings up another important, and related, issue - look at that employment contract *carefully*, it's quite common for an employer to claim ownership of all "IP" you produce while you are in their employ, including stuff created completely on your own time. The rationale being that you were probably at least thinking about it on their time. Supposedly most employers are quite negotiable on that bit beforehand, they may even have alternate contracts at the ready, but if you don't catch it when you sign your contract then they've got you by the short hairs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ya... I was working at a company about a decade ago that was purchased. When the new bosses came in they handed us a bunch of paperwork to sign including a non-compete which we hadn't had previously. It had explicit language that said any thing we created on or off clock at work or at home was theirs expressly. I refused to sign and urged my coworkers similarly. At some point I ended up on a conference call with the legal team at overlord corporate negotiating an alternate version of the contracts which
Re: You guessed it: It depends (Score:2, Insightful)
Just create a company to hold the patents. Hire consultant to negotiate licensing in exchange for a cut of the royalties. You keep the rest as sole shareholder.
This leaves you with most of the profits while putting the licensing at arms length.
Re: (Score:3)
It's worse than that. If the company you apply for a job at has any interest in the patents, chances are that they will not offer you a job.
The problem is that you selling/licensing patents to them while an employee will easily be seen as a conflict of interest.
If they want you and the patents, I believe they may require you to sign over any and all IP to them as terms of employment, compensated by a signing bonus.
I've not got any patents, but at one point I was handed an employment contract that demanded I grant a licence to all my past and future work (which I refused to sign), so you could very well be right. (I'm in the UK, although the company in question was headofficed in Canada)
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious problem with that is that your past work may very well be someone else's property.
You may simply have no standing to grant a license to your past work.
Re:"headofficed" - LOL (Score:4, Informative)
Verbing wierds language.
Are you patenting software? (Score:4, Insightful)
If so then fuck off.
Re:Are you patenting software? (Score:5, Informative)
I almost put a note in the original question about that, but I decided not to, in an effort to keep the talk on topic. So let me point out my stance. First, I'm against software patents and frankly I think the whole patent situation needs reform far beyond software patents. At the same time, if something is patentable, I'm not sure anyone should avoid patenting the idea simply because you disagree with the system. I'd rather patent them and donate the patents to the EFF and GPL an implementation. On the other hand, I want to avoid a situation where for-profit companies co-opt the idea and charge people for it. Maybe I'm not altruistic enough; I'm conflicted on it, honestly. I haven't quite gotten there yet, though, so in order to not turn this into a flame war I skipped the topic. Anyway, here we are, and I'm trying to respond thoughtfully rather than just, as you say, fuck off.
To answer you point, though, some of my ideas are similar to these patents... decide for yourself if these are deeply "software patents": https://www.google.com/patents/US6263334 [google.com], https://www.google.com/patents/US20030187867 [google.com], and https://www.google.com/patents/US7185023 [google.com], and I'd love to get feedback on how to deal with that aspect of the issue.
Re:Are you patenting software? (Score:4, Insightful)
Those patents disclose algorithms. Basically, applied math. Which should have never, ever been allowed as claims in a patent since they are antithetical to the compromise between the inventor's and society's benefit the patent system was designed to facilitate. So, yes, they are pretty much what one would call "software patents".
Whether or not they describe revolutionary ideas, and whether or not they required creative thought to invent is completely beside the point. Patenting algorithms runs against the very worldview that built the research scaffolding which allowed you to come up with these ideas (the old adage about standing on the shoulders of giants--and now imagine a world where those shoulders could only be visited if you paid the piper.) Math isn't invented, it's discovered.
That being said, under no circumstances would I recommend a client to hire you if I caught wind that you owned patents applicable to the field in which you would be working. That simply screams "conflict of interest", "subsequent lawsuit", and "humongous liability."
Re: (Score:3)
So you disagree with the patent system, but yet you have some software patents and you want to try to wield them to extract extra money from a potential employer.
It doesn't actually sound like you disagree with the patent system at all.
If you want to do the ethically right thing, don't buy yourself in any deeper. Don't bring them up to your employer, and don't try to charge them extra money when you write code for them that uses the math concepts that you've hoarded for yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to do the ethically right thing, don't buy yourself in any deeper. Don't bring them up to your employer, and don't try to charge them extra money when you write code for them that uses the math concepts that you've hoarded for yourself.
Don't use the patented implementation at all, no matter how tempting or whether you do it for free. If your employer finds out that you have used tech that you hold the patents to, the likely outcome is an immediate termination and a defensive lawsuit against you.
They can't afford the risk of you suing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I suspect that he couldn't sue them, because if he'd used his IP whilst working for them he'd be implicitly giving them a licence, but that it could still cause them problems because he could withdraw the licence when he feels like it.
The situation surely shouldn't be that much different to someone who'd patented something for a previous employer, just that your employer in this case was effectively your own small business. You can't use it in your new job, and you shouldn't try to sell your old emp
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, I want to avoid a situation where for-profit companies co-opt the idea and charge people for it.
If the idea requires a level of effort to implement that only those large companies can provide, then it's probably something deserving of getting paid for. That implementation is protected by copyright. If, on the other hand, it's simple enough that other people can implement it without a great deal of work, then eventually a free (gratis) implementation will rise up. Software patents are what allow ideas to be co-opted by for-profit companies.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, I want to avoid a situation where for-profit companies co-opt the idea and charge people for it.
If the idea requires a level of effort to implement that only those large companies can provide, then it's probably something deserving of getting paid for. That implementation is protected by copyright. If, on the other hand, it's simple enough that other people can implement it without a great deal of work, then eventually a free (gratis) implementation will rise up.
The free (gratis) implementation would not infringe the copyright on the large company's implementation, since it would be separately created and not a copy. This is why copyright is great when the original item is what's desired - Harry Potter, rather than Larry Kotter; World of Warcraft, rather than Troll-Human MMO Saga; the Hulk movie rather than the Strong Green Man movie from Bollywood, etc. It's terrible when the implementation is what's desired, but not the specific copy - for example, Photoshop vs.
Re:Are you patenting software? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure how one might think patents on methods of optimizing database queries would not qualify as software patents. As someone else said below, it's applied mathematics. Heck, the "relational" part of "relational database" comes from the theory of set relations. And if databases are your field, you know that. And if you'd donated the patents to the EFF, then you wouldn't be asking this question.
Trying to play devil's advocate the only counterargument I can come up with is, "the optimizations are useful because of the way this particular computer is architected." But that's silly; much of number theory is useful and studied because it's applicable to cryptography. Being useful in an engineering situation doesn't turn mathematics into engineering.
I don't believe in telling people to fuck off for asking an honest question. At the same time, I'm not personally inclined to help you with your problem, because you're asking with help engaging in an antisocial activity. The weird thing is, from your comment, it seems we're in agreement on that, but you don't see that what you're doing is what we both believe is wrong. Dude, those kinds of patents are the types of things most software developers talk about when they mean software patents. Amazon one-click and Microsoft's FAT patent are just talked about more because *EVERYONE* runs into those, whereas only compiler developers run into the asinine register allocation patents, and only database developers run into yours. But they're still bad, just bad in a narrower field. Look up the history of register allocation in GCC and LLVM if you want to see what patents can do to OSS. LLVM uses linear scan register allocation, which is faster than the standard graph coloring algorithm, but worse-performing. Guess which consideration is most important in 2014 when you can compile on 16 CPUs at once? GCC, as usual, does something totally fucked up because it's been around so long accumulating cruft, but its algorithm was originally designed around exactly the same patents LLVM had to design around.
Again: software patents have crippled open source compilers' register allocation algorithms from the dawn of GCC to the rise of LLVM. How disgusting is that? And the register allocation patents are what happens when we're aware of the patents and they're held by an OSS-friendly company (IBM).
If you're not going to stop patenting software, but you care about the ethical implications of your work, my minimal request to you would be to donate the patents somewhere like the EFF or FSF in your will. If you don't, your heirs might decide to sell your work to SCOracle and you'll fuck up every OSS database for a LONG. TIME. I'm sure you don't want that to be your legacy.
And btw, if you haven't, you should have your estate planning done anyway. Everyone with even a small amount of assets should. Shit happens, it's not as expensive as you might think, and a competent attorney will also prepare "collaterals" where you say, among other things, what you want to happen if you end up like Terri Schiavo. And if you're not aware of why you really need to make that absolutely clear in a totally legally binding way ... just look at the Wikipedia article for "Terri Schiavo".
Re: (Score:3)
I think we're in agreement on how the world _should_ be, but maybe we don't agree on how to operate in the world the way it is. I definitely considered the patents software oriented, so if I came across as playing coy there, that was shadowing a much deeper discussion that I didn't want to get into. I think there are shades of grey even there... I'm very happy with the recent court opinions striking down software implementations of things that were derived from non-software ideas. Doing something on a co
Re:Are you patenting software? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or you could publish the method/algorithm in a journal. Nothing already published qualifies for a patent. Having your name on (high quality) journal articles also can't hurt your job prospects.
Re:Are you patenting software? (Score:5, Informative)
No, I didn't patent those ideas, the links were examples; but I completely agree that the patent system is failing, and I pointed that out. The question is how to deal with it. I think it's a valid approach to continue to patent ideas until the issue is fixed because the mixed-bag approach is very difficult.
The EFF agrees at least that the situation is not black and white... from their site: "While [abandoning patents is] compelling, there are risks to this strong approach. Every piece of software released to the world without legal protections may leave open a door for someone else to attempt to patent the same technology (and may leave its creators more open to legal threats without a patent to wield defensively)." (https://www.eff.org/patent [eff.org]).
I am genuinely not trying to get rich (well, not through patent evil or trolling), or to be exploitative, and while I don't want to contribute to the problem, I don't want to be a victim of it. Anyway, I appreciate the comments, but again I was trying to shy the focus away from software patents... much ink has already been spilled on that topic. Assuming the patents were one that met your complete approval, would you feel differently?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not trying to get rich, why not donate the patents to the Open Invention Network which will help defend open source software from patent attacks?
Re: (Score:2)
This is complete FUD. A piece of software 'released to the world' is prior art, which does exactly the opposite: it prevents someone else from patenting the same technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, it is often far too easy for prior art to go unnoticed. Having it on file in the patent system does help determine that prior art exists because that's the first place the lawyers and patent clerks are going to look. Having patents on file and donated to the Open Invention Network is the best way to be sure a technology remains freely available under the current system.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally agree.
Oh, and if you're patenting business processes, take a leap off a short pier.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your describing trade secrets. IP covers patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets. Trade secrets are usually covered by private contact and do not have the same protections in law as provided for patents, copyrights, and trademarks.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, IP is meant to be wider... In point of fact, I used IP, even knowing that people like Stallman disagree with the term, because I didn't want the question to be bogged down by patent rhetoric. Obviously I failed. While my primary situation is patent related, I hoped the question would apply to any pre-existing IP that is somehow encumbered... one example -- I have a large photo portfolio; if I go to work for someone, and they're aware of my existing body of work, and they want to use a piece I have fo
Re: (Score:2)
one example -- I have a large photo portfolio; if I go to work for someone, and they're aware of my existing body of work, and they want to use a piece I have for a project, is this something I should have already addressed at the job interview?
I can't think of any photographer who would open up his entire portfolio on entering contracted employment, because when that employment ends, he may well be self-employed again, and that would essentially put him starting from zero.
The problem here, though, is that while your employer can get a photograph of a similar subject and composition, you've basically blocked out a whole technique, and worse, a technique you're familiar with. You're essentially interfering with your own ability to do your job. Of c
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because only hardware inventions require intelligence and ingenuity. Software patents can be created by even a monkey.
Because most software patents don't go above the threshold of 'obvious.'
If most software patents were impressive, people wouldn't have a problem with the creator getting paid for them. It's the fact that people can get a patent for something I can think of in a day's work that's really annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
> So software patents should be abolished because some patents were incorrectly granted...
Not "some", the vast majority. The error rate for software patents is more like 99%.
> Should prisons be abolished because some prisoners were incorrectly sentenced?
If this were happening 99% of the time, then sure?
Software patents are so bad that it would be simpler just to abolish them. Although the real problem is the assumption from the Ayn Rand types that avarice is the mother of invention.
Re: Are you patenting software? (Score:4, Funny)
And also the abuses of software patents cause economic harm that FAR outweighs the benefits.
Indeed, just look at all the productivity that goes to waste whenever /. posts an article containing the word patent. In a nanosecond hordes of well paid tech professionals stop coding, innovating and creating just to read through all 389 posts and post a couple of their own. By the time they are done posting others have posted too, generating a whole bunch of new posts that have to be read and replied to, severely delaying the calculation of the Ultimate question [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
probably doesn't matter? (Score:2)
IP is licensed separately. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, you should explicitly refuse to implement your patented IP for the company without a separate licensing fee. This is completely separate from employment.
In particular, you don't want to use your IP in their product without a licensing deal in place. That creates a conflict of interest situation, one likely to result in litigation later. What if, later, you sold your patent rights to another party and they sued your employer? Your employer could then sue you for putting them in that situation.
Bring in a lawyer. Welcome to the big time.
lawyer up (Score:2)
If you take any other advice here, you are an idiot. Not one person here can honestly tell you what to do unless they are part of your negotiation.
If you advance sufficiently far, you should be able to get some basic contacts for the company. I would ask the legal team there what advice they have. But if you take my advice without asking a qualified lawyer, you are an idiot.
Don't ask legal questions here, and don't follow any advice given. Especially this advic
Re: (Score:2)
Dizzying, but thanks (and thanks to parent post). Undoubtedly the lawyers are helpful and yes, I'm talking to legal counsel. I do still see some useful non-legal advice here, however. I'm interested in how many people say they would not hire someone with patents because they worried they had a hidden agenda or were more motivated to leave the company, and it's also relieving to see the number of people who recommend complete up-front disclosure.
Thanks!
Re: lawyer up (Score:2, Informative)
I've hired many employees who, either in their spare time or as part of previous employment, had a stable of patents. I hired them often because they had the patents, and as a technology company we never assumed the patents came for free. Incidentally not once did we license those patents.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm interested in how many people say they would not hire someone with patents because they worried they had a hidden agenda or were more motivated to leave the company, and it's also relieving to see the number of people who recommend complete up-front disclosure.
Someone who would not hire someone because they hold patents is clearly an idiot, because it is a sign of having achieved something (assuming it's not an assinine patent). Unfortunately there are lots of idiots in management. Fortunately, you have a way to help filter out the idiots that you'd really be better off not working for.
Re: (Score:2)
If you take any other advice here, you are an idiot. Not one person here can honestly tell you what to do unless they are part of your negotiation.
If you advance sufficiently far, you should be able to get some basic contacts for the company. I would ask the legal team there what advice they have. But if you take my advice without asking a qualified lawyer, you are an idiot.
Don't ask legal questions here, and don't follow any advice given. Especially this advice about not following advice.
This is the best advice in this thread, with one caveat. You need to have a disinterested third party, i.e your lawyer, walls you through what rights you have and the potential ramifications. You already said you are talking to your lawyer, which is a ritual step before you go further. Your lawyer can advise you on what you need too do to protect yourself. For example, can your previous contract employer claim to own your patents? I do not know the answer to that, but it is a critical question, IMHO, to kn
Re:IP is licensed separately. (Score:5, Interesting)
probably best not to mention any patents you are holding
Mod parent: -1 (Bad advice)
Frank, honest communication is one of the pillars of a lasting business relationship. Hiding things from your employer is only likely to cause more problems later when it comes out, with potential consequences ranging from a soured relationship with your boss all the way up to an expensive, bitter lawsuit. (Not to say you'd lose the suit, but I can certainly see it happening, and it's something you don't want to be involved in.)
Definitely bring it up, and definitely make separate arrangements for use of the IP. I would have that complement your salary rather than being a part of it. Not only is there the chance you might sell the IP elsewhere, but what happens when you leave? On either good terms or bad? As an employer, if I hire you, it's because I think you (and your knowledge / capabilities / skills) will be an asset to the company. I would not put myself in the position of bringing you on, becoming dependent (to any degree) on your IP, and then having you rip that out of my company when you leave.
Granted, on some level we employers EXPECT to become dependent on some level on our new hires' skills and abilities. But that particular person we hire does not have a monopoly on skill or ability, so if they get hit by a truck / leave / whatever, they can be replaced, though perhaps not easily.
With patents, you DO have a guaranteed monopoly on that particular benefit you can bring to the company. If you were applying to work for me, I would want to arrange -- perhaps parallel to your salary -- a separate licensing agreement for the IP. At the very least, I would require a perpetual (or at least renewable-at-my-option-under-original-terms), non-exclusive license to any IP that make their way into the business's core operations. I'm not saying I'd require that for free, but without the guarantee that bringing you on wasn't going to cripple me in the future, I would definitely not hire you at any price.
The simple fact that you were capable of developing the patented methods that I find important adds to your value as an employee, and therefore to the salary I'd be willing to pay.
Disclaimer: I consider myself a high-integrity businessperson, so I could be overlooking some way that a scoundrel would try to take advantage of you. Get a lawyer's advice on the contract. And don't apply to work for any scoundrels anyway, because that's just asking for trouble. ;)
Contract (Score:3)
Every employment contract I've signed has a separate form to explicitly enumerate all your pre-existing Intellectual Property (patented or not). This benefits both the company (in strengthening their claim towards owning things you come up while working for them) and you (in that it establishes that you had the concept prior to working there).
Mod this -1 for requesting cencorship (Score:2)
You can surely disagree with an opinion, but the fact that you requested that people censor an opinion is disturbing. I did not read your post after seeing that statement, and sincerely hope you are moderated negatively.
The purpose of the Slashdot moderation system is to encourage and reward "good" dialogue, not to censor opinions you don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
All your patent portfolio is likely to tell me is that I don't get to have 100% of your skills and abilities after I've hired you. NDA's and non-compete agreements can only go so far to alleviate a hiring manager's concerns in this area.
Funny you mention NDAs and non-competes... surely any dev is burdened with accumulated NDAs and trade secrets from previous employers? Why is there a difference when that employer is self-?
Be straight (Score:2)
Assuming that you are negotiating your contract you can very clearly outline what is and isn't part of your hiring. Don't pussy foot around the subject. If you don't want to share your IP then explicitly tell them they are just examples of past experience.
Leave them off your resume. (Score:4, Insightful)
If it is not part of the deal then leave it off your resume.
I think you are confusing two different situations in an interview situation.
1. You working for a company.
2. A company licensing your patents.
Leave the patents out of the process at this point.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you looking for a job? Then these will actually be potential problems towards getting hired. People interviewing you who don't have patents will be intimidated. It's like a PhD for a coding job - leave it off, unless you want to seem "too qualified" or "not the right fit".
Re: (Score:2)
Well not only that but i would think there might ve fears of driving development in directions that depend on ir outright violate those patents and then taking them to town down the road by requiring an expensive license. I think they call that submarining or something similar when it is done on standards.
Re: (Score:2)
"If it is not part of the deal then leave it off your resume."
Anyone doing a basic quick 2 minute search on the web or USPTO.gov is going to find not only patents you hold, but also patent applications you have filed which are still in process.
I would simply state "I hold XX patents and patent applications I own personally in my field of work." It is part of your expertise and an indication you are capable of innovating. Let a lawyer help you with how you respond to questions on the patents.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is not part of the deal then leave it off your resume.
If you worked for Oracle or Apple would they expect you to walk in the door with the source code to OS X or Oracle DB? If you mention an open source project you've worked on would they expect to get copyrights on all your contributions? Why should a patent be any different?
A resume isn't a business proposal saying what you'll do, it's a list of qualifications that shows what you've done. There should be absolutely no expectation that a license to any patents would be given to a future employer free of charg
Re: (Score:2)
If you mention an open source project you've worked on would they expect to get copyrights on all your contributions? Why should a patent be any different?
With some of the contracts these fuckers try to push, that's not exactly an over-the-top concern.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is not part of the deal then leave it off your resume.
Leaving them off may not be such a good idea if those patents are your personal selling point - showing your capabilities, and why they should hire you and not someone else.
Also later if you get the job, those patents will probably get in the way. I expect those patents to be right in the main field of expertise of the applicant - which is probably exactly the expertise the prospective employer wants to hire him for. It is going to be hard to use your expertise, when a key part of that expertise can not be
Patent attorney chiming in (Score:5, Informative)
The real question is: are you applying for a job or are you trying to license your technology? In all likelihood, a blended negotiation is probably not going to happen unless: 1. you're looking for work in academics/advanced research or 2. you're a pre-eminent engineer/scientist being hired for your contributions in your inventive space.
If you're applying for a job, then the recruiter probably doesn't want to hear your invention pitch. The recruiter probably doesn't care about your patented stuff other than perhaps an aggregate count: e.g., I'm a named inventor on 3 million patent applications. You should be focused on what your qualifications for a job are.
If you're afraid that once you get the job that you're going to be deprived of a subsequent royalty stream, you should review your employment contract and should just flag that as a concern of yours. I suspect you're unlikely to get much value for your IPs from your employer, but at least the paperwork will be clear as to rights to use, the existence of the inventions prior to employment, etc.
If you're talking about trying to license your technology, then you need to talk to the right people. Probably their patent attorney or the person in charge of in-licensing technology. This is usually a protracted negotiation.
Last point, on your moral quandary: your patent probably doesn't stop you from deploying your full efforts at a job. It might stop you from implementing your own patented invention. But, on that point, you're the gatekeeper of your own invention. If you elect to deploy your patented invention as part of your regular work, you shouldn't expect compensation for it unless your employer asks you to.
Re: (Score:2)
While I get that trying to go from job interview to IP licensing seems nigh impossible, I can see many situat
Re: (Score:2)
If you're applying for a job, then the recruiter probably doesn't want to hear your invention pitch.
Do you also leave your employment history off, as the recruiter isn't hiring you to do the last job you did?
They're hiring you... (Score:2)
If they want the use of your patented IP, they can license the technology or buy the rights to the IP from you.
Re: (Score:3)
Companies pay millions to license patents from other companies. But they only pay $2,000-$6,000 for a single patent belonging to their employee. Guess which payment model the company will choose?
Re: (Score:2)
Separate (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to money for use of your patents, go sell patent licenses. If you want a job, be clear that you are there to work and your patented work is off limits (I am assuming you personally hold the patents). When we interview patent holders I grill them on the patent since it is clear piece of representative work I have access to, but I have never considered that their patents come along for the ride (usually they are owned by some other company).
When it comes to proprietary IP that is not patented, I steer a wide berth to avoid any chance of making it look like they need to share their protected knowledge to pass the interview. If it is on their resume I generally ask for enough description to understand the gyst of what they are working on and will ask industry standard design questions, but I do my best to stay far away from anything that makes them squirm.
What "de-facto license"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The situation that worries me is that, while working for them, they'll ask me to solve the problem that the patent solves, which seems likely since I keep working in the same industry. I mean, say you invent something that makes cars a tiny fraction more fuel efficient; enough that it's useful but not so much that you can quit your job to market it. Then, you start working for a company who asks you to make their cars more fuel efficient. The patented ideas are relevant to my job; it's a small but useful
Talk to a lawyer (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, talk to a lawyer. I am not at all versed in various IP /employment laws and I assume you are not either. I have no idea what can go wrong, but you need to know these things. Have that lawyer read anything you are going to sign. You do not want to sign away your rights accidentally. Once you know the finer details of the relevant case law, you can decide how you want to approach it. If you are an employee and you do not want to share your patents and your employer uses them anyway, what happens then? Are you going to sue your employer? Corporations are soulless entities that will suck whatever life/power out of you that you let them. Work on the assumption they are out to screw you and prepare appropriately.
What industry? (Score:2)
and what job position are you interviewing for?
If it's a regular job and not research, I'd say don't bring it up. Even if your patent has nothing to do with this company's business, they might think you'll bail out of the job as soon as you make $$$ from your patent.
Or if your patent is still pending, they might think you'll spend more time trying to get your patent awarded. Basically another distraction. Kind of like how employers disfavor workers with young children.
Create a LTD company (Score:4, Interesting)
Hi
Why don't you create a limited company, then you sell your patents to [your|the] company for an undisclosed sum and then pretend you had success in patenting and selling your patents.
You achieved two goals: You can put your legitimate patents in your CV and the patents are not part of the deal because they are now in the hands of a legal third party.
Cheers
Nicola
Creating a mine field. (Score:2)
Consult a lawyer (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously employment and patent licenses are two completely different things.
Bottom line you basically could lead your new employer into a situation where 'he' is infringing 'your' patent.
Obviously it could be opposite around.
I would not trust any /. advice, except: consult a competent IP/patent lawyer.
Job Interview (Score:2)
Well here's something we don't see everyday: a "story" about job interviews on SlashDice!
Duh! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
+1. I'm surprised we have not seen this already. Given that people filing personal patents are likely to already be experts in the field, and therefor employed in that field. Just make absolutely sure that you have plenty of written evidence that your employer asked you to implement what violates your patent.
As an employer, I would not employ anyone that had a personal patent. Red sign. Anyone that self interested is not going to be my puppy. And he will keep any good ideas he has while working for me
Re:Duh! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Great idea. I'll patent that business method right now, sucker.
License them and they are a plus (Score:4, Insightful)
The idiots that tell you that they would never hire anyone who has a patent are just that, idiots.
I own a successful company with nearly 100 employees. The fact that you have patents shows that you're not just a run-of-the-mill employee like these wannabes who are decrying the fact that you have a patent. Of course if you come to work for me, you will sign an agreement signing anything you invent while you work for me to my company. That is part and parcel of the deal these days. I would not consider you to be a problem employee I would hope and expect that while you work for me he would generate patents for me. If the idea of generating patents for me and not getting any other benefit out of it chafes at you, then you should not be out searching for a job. You should instead find a way to monetize and licensure patents so that you can work as an individual inventor and secure more patents for yourself.
If your patents were somehow relevant to my business, then we would potentially have a separate discussion about licensing. If you got the patent and you own the patent then any financial value to it is yours not mine. I think it is wrong of me is employer to expect you to just give me the use of your patent. If you feel like it, then go ahead. Especially as some have mentioned if it's a dream job and the commercial value of your patent is not much.
If your patent was somehow a fundamental advantage to my business, I would want to license it from you and keep it out of the hands of my competitors. Or at the very least negotiate most favorable terms from you.
So no, I see no situation where you owning a patent would be a disadvantage. Unless, of course, you're trying to get a job with some Slashdot pinhead.
Whatever you're comfortable with.. (Score:2)
Really, do what you're comfortable with. The license is for you to write however you like it. If they come back and say "nope we won't hire you without a full patent transfer" then its again, your decision whether you're comfortable with that or not. You can always say no, or negotiate further.
One thing to be absolutely sure of though: Get it all in writing, and have a lawyer review it if you consider your IP worth anything in the first place. Nothing would suck worse than signing a perfect agreement o
Not on my watch (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, if I found out you owned the holding company with the patent, I'd probably not hire you for the same reason.
Precisely one of my concerns and similar to the sentiment others have issued merely for having an industry patent, much less a holding company. I'm not trying to be dishonest, and frankly I wouldn't have minded if more people recommended granting a limited non-exclusive license to an employer; really I was hoping that a few inventions would look good on a resume. I'm rather taken aback by the number of people that actually perceive it as a negative. Thanks for the feedback; I don't want a holding compan
Solving Tough Problems ... (Score:2)
This sounds like a tough problem -- you've thought about it, examined many angles, yet cannot find a clear winner. So time to bring out the PHB decision tool, Flip a Coin!
Seriously. You've examined all the alternatives rather thoroughly with more data & values than we can know yet cannot determine a winner. They must be evenly balanced, so a coin toss (PRNG) is as good a decision method as any other. If you insist on persistantly over-thinking this question, then devote your efforts to finding some
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome. I have to enumerate my choices now... I think a d-4 or d-6 can handle it... great advice! :-)
lots of people have patents (Score:2)
Lots of employees have written and filed patents. Employers are fully aware that these patents are the property of other companies and they can not use them. Your situation is different only to an insignificant degree.
Holding your own patent is useless to an employer. (Score:2)
Worse than useless in fact.
If I were hiring you I'd be concerned that you would use your patents against me if we have a dispute later on. Of course I can work out a special agreement with you where you agree to automatically license to me any patents you hold. Or... I could hire that other guy I like about the same as you but who doesn't come with any special legal issues to resolve.
As for be *impressed* by the fact that you hold your own patents, I wouldn't be, given some of the silly patents that I've
Have patents? (Score:2)
I get it (Score:2)
I get it... you're confused about what the interview process is.
This is a sales pitch. You are selling yourself to that company.
If they were trying to sell you their product, do you think they would hesitate to suggest it came with lots of things it really didn't?
In fact, do you really believe all the perks they suggest are part of the job will come as easily as they'll lead you to believe?
Of course not.
Let them believe what they want. Show them your "Stuff" and if they assume they get to use that for free,
Company should insist on license agreement (Score:2)
If the company doesn't insist on a license agreement then walk away. Any lawyer worth his weight in rice would insist on a license agreement. If the company can't get that right all on their own they don't know enough about intellectual property to work with.
Inventor here... (Score:2)
I have a handful of patents where I'm listed as the Inventor, and have some experience in this area.
First off, my case is somewhat different form yours in that while I'm listed as the inventor, the patents in question are owned by one of my former employers, as I came up with the inventions during my employment with them. While this does have the downside of my never being able to monetize them, the upside is if a prospective employer can't really pressure me into giving them anything for free -- they get
Re: (Score:2)
Nice to have a first-hand opinion. Thanks Yaz. Someone else mentioned the corporate holding aspect, but then pointed out that they'd see it as deceitful if they found out a job applicant was sole owner of a company that held their IP, although the licensing benefits of that approach seem to make it worthwhile.
Would I be right in assuming that the patents on your resume make you feel MORE marketable, rather than less? Some people have mentioned that it could lead employers to fear conflicts of interest an
Resume (Score:3)
However, keep an eye on the details of any contract you sign as I've heard that some companies like to slip evil little lines in them that give them rights to anything you make, or work on during the time period you are employed by them. I've heard that some even make claims on things made afterwards. It wouldn't surprise me if some unscrupulous companies also tried to claim prior creations as well.
Obviously, you want to refuse to sign anything with that kind of bogus IP looting involved. Definitely have it removed first, and be suspicious of anyone that would try it in the first place. Since most people don't speak legalese, make sure you have a lawyer go over the papers to make sure there's nothing obfuscated and lurking in there to bite your backside.
(ianal)
I give up (Score:2)
Don't worry about it (Score:2)
If they're your patents, issued before they hire you, then whether they hire you isn't relevant. Simply hiring you gives them no right to your existing IP. If they want to use the patents, there has to be some sort of contract giving them that right. And they should know this.
One caveat: some employment contracts will have overly broad IP terms, so if there's a contract at all, make sure that it doesn't give them any claims to anything invented before you worked there, or done on your own time on your own e
Patents vs. trade secrets (Score:2)
Since you didn't list your actual patent numbers, and you seem concerned about your employer using your patented IP, I have to assume that you see your patented inventions as trade secrets. In other words, you are worried that your employer might use your patented invention without your permission. If so, then you're doing it wrong.
The idea of a patent is to make the details of the invention totally public. In other words, a good patent application essentially gives any person "skilled in the art" the ne
Same as a cheating husband (Score:2)
I would not want to hire someone willing to sell out the IP of their last employer. How can I trust this person with my IP?
Huh (Score:2)
If you mention that you used to be a successful musician, would they expect you to perform for free at the company picnic?
Which patents, exactly? (Score:2)
Seriously, numbers.
I ask because a large number of patents are, well, junk and will be thrown out at the first legal challenge. If you have one of those, quit worrying about it. You don't actually have anything of value. I used to deal with a fair number of people who were working full time somewhere and trying the software-based startup route. Having a patent on something obvious was common. I didn't really expect any of them to survive a legal challenge.
Patents are assets. Put them into a company. (Score:2)
Plain and simple: Patents are assets. Put them into a company. A company that you own 51% in at minimum of course.
Make it clear to any potential employer, that in terms of patents it's ... out of your hands to give your prospective emloyer access to IP owned by [YOUR_PATENT_HOLDING_COMPANY] ... whenever they're negotiating about your patents they're talking to you not as an employee but as CEO/Owner of [YOUR_PATENT_HOLDING_COMPANY]
a)
and
b)
This not just keeps the fronts clear but also opens you up to potenti
Re: (Score:2)
Employee hereby assigns to Employer any and all intellectual property rights which Employee currently possesses,
So how do your prospective employers handle IP that you have already licensed to someone else? Perhaps a previous employer. Maybe even one that, if confronted over the issue might just buy out your new employer, disassemble them and bulldoze over their HQ?
Re: (Score:2)
"in recognition of the compensation being offered and accepted by Employee, Employee hereby assigns to Employer any and all intellectual property rights which Employee currently possesses, or may come into Employee's possession during the term of employment by Employer."
That's brutal. I will absolutely look for that; thank you for that perspective and your input.
Re: (Score:2)
The potential probity issues of having an employee who is also a commercial supplier
Are you a government contractor? If so, I understand your position.
Otherwise, employees with financial interests in suppliers was pretty much SOP at a few places I've worked. People think nothing of replying to, "Why are we selecting this vendor?" with, "I get stock options from them."
Re: talk to a lawyer (Score:3)
I agree. I had an offer in hand when I got THEIR IP policy. They wanted the ability to claim anything I thought of while in their employ and for two years after as THEIR IP. I listed the projects I was already working on. The offer died in legal after two weeks.
One idea I had been working on showed up in the App Store one month after I discussed it with them. The developer was a former employee of the company.
My idea was unique. It had value. And, someone with more resources was able to capitalize on m
THIS. Mod Parent Up. (Score:2)
THIS. Mod Parent Up.