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?"
You can be fired for anything.
The real question is, can you afford legal action to contest your firing, and do the state and federal laws, and your employment contract, support your actions? To answer those toughies, you need a good lawyer. Not slashdot.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Your job is to do development for a company - they pay you for this. Thus, your feelings on whether patents are broken or not is irrelevent. Anything that you've written for the company while being paid by the company belongs to the company, and if they choose to patent it that is their right. You don't own it, you have no say. Consequently, when you tell your boss you won't do what you are being told, despite the fact that ethically you may have a point, you don't actually have a leg to stand on. So will you get fired? Who knows, we don't know your boss. Would your boss be in the right to repremand you? Absolutely.
When you get paid to do a job what you produce isn't yours. Of course you can be fired for this - and what difference does it make whether you file the patent or someone else does? If you feel really strongly about it you can hold firm, but realize if they can you there's nothing you can do.
On the other hand, if you really want to screw him you can search the patent databases and find one that's similar. Then tell your boss. Knowingly violating a patent is treble damages, which is why they tell you never to look. They'll probably fire you for that too, but that should severely complicate their foray into patentland.
Tell boss the patent wont fly because of this prior art and you're saving the company $10k+
Engineering is the art of compromise.
You'll be fired, and they'll file the patent anyway.
cat
A better question is: am I valuable enough to the company that threatening to quit if they patent my work likely to be of any concern to them? If the answer is no, you make your own decision about what is more important to you, your job or your ethics.
How we know is more important than what we know.
which means that either you or the employer can terminate the relationship at any time with or without cause.
which also probably means they can fire you and not face the consequences. It just won't be a "for cause" firing, but rather letting you go for some bogus reason.
which, if you think about it, makes sense.
The real question is -- what's more important to your employer (or, more precisely, your immediate manager)? You or your cooperation with whatever they ask?
Jobs? Which jobs?
Your boss may not be wrong for patenting your work.
If your work contributed to or is a piece of code or software that your company relies on for revenue, what happens if he doesn't patent it? Someone else does. And then turns and sues your company for using "their" code. It's not hard to see where that leads. Company going under, you and your boss getting fired, etc, etc.?
I don't like it any more than the next Slashdotter, but it's not hard to picture that exact scenario.
You may have to just grin and bear it.
ad astra per alia porci
"Hey Slashdot, look how cool and ethical I am! I have problems with how my company is doing something and I want to "ask" about it even though all of the relevant options are obvious! This is so everyone will know how awesome I am because I don't believe in patents!"
I mean, cool or whatever, but did you really think you were going to get any other answer than, "What's worth more, your job, or your beliefs about software patents?"
Surely anyone intelligent enough to HAVE this dilemma should be able to map out the various options and likely outcomes. At least, just as well as anyone on slashdot can.
http://xkcd.com/386/
The do need to list the inventors by name, even if the patent belongs to a company. IIRC they do need to list your name on the patent, and that requires your consent/signature.
I agree with trying to convince the boss to see reason. You'll likely not succeed though.
It sounds like the usual bunch of suits trying to fluff up the value of their company with things that have little meaning and that they know very little about (patents pending that may or may not rejected later) before they flog it off and get rich.
I drink to make other people interesting!
First, it will depend on the state. But the simple fact is, that he developed those items FOR the company AND on company time. In just about EVERY STATE, if not ALL states, the company owns the patent (unless the author explicity excluded those BEFORE time of contract. As such, they are now asking him to submit THEIR idea to the PO. This is no different than if they ask you to take a pix of something, or back up something, or whatever. It is expected AND legal for the actions that they are asking him to do. As such, I would expect him to be fired for not doing the patents. Though that is NOT a very good idea in front of an IPO.
The idea of getting a lawyer is the best advice that anyone can give.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
.
You will find the lawyer - or the doctor - you deserve.
If he isn't telling you the truth, it is because you don't want to hear the truth.
I was in a situation like this recently, where my principles potentially conflicted with a project my company wanted to do. I had a relatively open schedule and I had mentioned I had an interest in the general technology that would be used. And so the project was first offered to me. I had to explain to my boss that I was not sure that I was comfortable with it. He wanted me to explain myself, and we discussed it at some length. He made a moderate attempt to change my perspective, but ultimately respected the fact that there are some matters on which my principles are not in line with his. And he respected my decision and passed the project on to another developer.
That is the way it should be. We as a nation (assuming you are in the US, and this may be true elsewhere) do a poor job of placing principles ahead of profit. It is unhealthy for the economy, I believe, because it leads to shoddy products and consumer hostile practices. It is detrimental to employee morale, which I think is a significant underlying component of the general malaise and lack of consumer confidence. Being pressured to compromise one's principles makes it harder for one to trust others (politicians, corporations, whatever), because we see that principles are under attack. Finally, seeing others compromise their principles leads one to feel that his or her principles should be subject to compromise. These last two pieces lead to our general lackadaisical approach to enforcing the law when it comes to people in positions of power (again, politicians, corporations, etc.).
Principles matter. If you cannot be true to yourself, everything else pales. That does not mean that you must actively block the behavior you question, but it does mean you have to decide if this issue is a principle for you. If it is, you should not participate in the infraction of that principle. Respectfully, and with an appropriate apology (not for having principles, but for the fact that your principles do not allow you to participate), but refuse you must. This nation grew strong because the founders decided to stand on principle. And it is growing weak because so many are being corrupted by greed. Our economic system was founded on the principle of creating economic wealth rather than harvesting financial wealth, and it blew the doors off all competitors because of that principle. And it is faltering now because the harvesting of financial wealth is leading us to sacrifice the creation of economic wealth. The first step in ending this corruption is to be not corrupted. The decision each person must make is whether there are lines that cannot be crossed. Those who have those lines are men of honor. Those who do not are sociopaths or cowards, but not men of honor. You may be fired and you may face criticism, but that is a small sacrifice to make to be able to call yourself - knowing that it holds rare truth when you say it - a man of honor, a patriot, and a capitalist.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance