Slashdot Mirror
Can I Be Fired For Refusing To File a Patent?
An anonymous reader writes "I am a developer for a medium-sized private technology company getting ready for an IPO. My manager woke up one morning and decided to patent some stuff I did recently. The problem is, I'm strongly opposed to software patents, believing that they are stifling innovation and dragging the technology industry down (see all the frivolous lawsuits reported here on Slashdot!). Now, my concern is: what kind of consequences could I bring on myself for refusing to support the patent process? Has anybody been in a similar position and what was the outcome?"
If you are against software patents, the best thing you can do is get your own patents in the current state of things. Then you can choose to not enforce them, while having strong grounds to prevent anyone else from patenting it and suing you despite your work being prior art. (It can and does happen.)
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
Make an anonymous posting somewhere, describing the innovation you came up with. If it has been disseminated before, it cannot be patented.
The problem with doing that is if the invention is not obvious and has paved the way for considerable financial gain then the company can probably trace it back to you through court orders for information; regardless of how anonymous you thought you were at the time.
It _IS_ a breach of your contract to release trade secrets outside of the company you work for. It's a pretty much standard clause in every employment contract. If it is traced back to you there could be loss of job, litigation, and possibly criminal charges depending on the severity that your company puts on the matter.
I drink to make other people interesting!
Okay, as an "inventor" for a private firm, you probably signed an agreement stating that all of your work done at said company is owned by the company. I think, therefore, that it is out of your hands--if the company wants to file a patent, they can do so.
Notice how Microsoft patents, for example, are owned by Microsoft Corporation, not by the individual coders who came up with whatever algorithm/mechanism/whatever the company is trying to patent.
Therefore, I *think* that your boss is just requesting your help filing and managing whatever the software does (assuming he is not a techie and can't write out the algorithm/flow charts himself). If you refuse to help him, he could still get a patent, and probably fire you, too...
HOWEVER! I am not a lawyer, and this sounds like something that should be verified by one. I would recommend talking to a patent attorney as well.
Hope that helps!
No, but FSF did.
You have to do that as part of the patent application process anyway!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
> You have to do that as part of the patent application process anyway!
Actually, no, you don't. You have an obligation (and it continues right up until the patent issues) to disclose any relevant prior art you know of -- or, for that matter any information you know that could affect, in any way, the patent examiners decisions.
But you are under no obligation to go *looking* for that information. That's the examiners job.
Of course I'm not a lawyer, but that's what they tell me when I do file patents. (yes, I'm an evil software patenter -- there goes my karma)
Your lawyer may say something different -- if you are filing a patent, I suggest you listen to him, and not me on this subject :-).
Back to the original subject at hand -- if you do find prior art, it would save the company money by not patenting -- which does cost 10 to 20k per. And whether you send this notice by email or not, you can and should insist on meeting your obligations under law to disclose that prior art to the patent office when and if you file for a patent.
Ian Ameline
"Wrongful dismissal case?" If you're fired because of your race, sex, or a few other things, then sure. Otherwise, generally a boss can fire an employee "at will", for reasons like "I don't like you."
I think several posters are forgetting what counts in business - integrity. The right thing for this guy to do is tell his boss his concerns, and perhaps highlight the poor light that the USPTO has lately taken on software patents. If his boss persists, he should either relent and file the patent, or consider a new job. That way, at least he keeps his integrity. Lying to his boss, or purposely undermining the patent would damage his integrity.
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
In some countries (European ones are a good example) governments prefer to protect employees from bosses firing for no reason because otherwise you get inflated unemployment figures. In the UK for example you have to have a reason to fire someone and it has to be fair. Even in the case of redundancies you can't get rid of the people you dislike under a lot of circumstances, you have to be able to justify why you've got rid of them if they've been there longer than other employees, you have to justify why you got rid of them if they perform better than other employees and so on. In other words you can't get rid of them if they're a good employee and you don't have good reason.
You can't even get rid of them by trying to make their life hell and making them want to leave because providing they've had the sense to document and get as much evidence (i.e. copies of e-mails) of all instances where the boss has made your life hell to try and make you leave. An employee who has had his life made difficult more so than other employees and who has evidence may choose to stay or leave the company and go for a constructive dismissal industrial tribunal. Payouts for succesful cases are often large on the order of 10s to 100s of thousands of pounds, this often acts as a good deterrent for bosses not to be particularly malicious assholes to employees. Realistically if you do stay in your job and file an industrial tribunal for this type of thing you'll probably find you have no future at that job anyway, but chances are if someone's boss is screwing them over regularly enough for them to file a tribunal you wouldn't have much to lose in that respect anyway.
I'm not sure however that even if these kind of laws were applicable in the country the poster lived in that not liking the patent system is grounds for avoiding the sack. When I was working in IT support I didn't particularly like users but I'm not sure I'd have got on too well if I'd refused to speak to them.