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.
Just patent the process of firing someone for refusing to file a patent.
Then they'll have to license the technology to be able to use it against you.
Frivolous patents are evil.
In many states, you can be let go at any time for any reason. It really comes down to what you value more, your principals or your job. Of course, if you are a valued employee, and if you are coming up with patentable ideas, I'd assume you are, how you broach the subject may help influence how stable your job is. Instead of first saying "I refuse," instead consider, "I object," followed by your reasoning. If they then push the issue past your objections, you can always move on to "I refuse."
--- It's not my fault this post looks redundant. I just type too slow.
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.
Does the phrase "at will employment" ring a bell?
Choose your battles in business wisely -- making a philosophical stand could have a heavy financial impact on you.
You may not "get fired" over taking a stand -- but it would probably put you in the "not a team player" camp.
Career-wise, that may be even worse (financially) than being fired. If your Company is planning an IPO, they probably have a substantial legal department... And enemies in Legal (the same people usually championing the patent process) are the worse kind of enemies to have. You may start getting the cold shoulder at review time, bonus time, and option-allotment time... Legal, unfortunately, isn't quiet when they have gripes -- and they usually have the means to pull strings like that!
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?
There's a very easy fix for this.
Make an anonymous posting somewhere, describing the innovation you came up with. If it has been disseminated before, it cannot be patented.
This is a fairly common process with companies that either cannot afford to patent or don't want to. They put in a 1 page add in some random magazine (Sheep Shearer Magazine, New Zealand) describing the invention and order a copy of the magazine. Then when someone else comes along and threatens a lawsuit because they patented the process, they simply show the magazine again and Bob's your uncle.
Maybe Slashdot could make an "invention" section for just this kind of stuff.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
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.
I think a better question is... is your opposition to patents so strong that you would be willing to stand up and lose your job for it?
I've been in a situation that forced me to stand up for what I believe in and was fired for it. I'd do it again in a heartbeat, because I wouldn't be able to work at a place that compromised my value system...
So is the question really whether they're able to fire you for not doing it?
How strong are your convictions, really?
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/
Basically I did something I thought was obvious, and the company wanted to patent it (which required me to sign a patent application). I said I wasn't willing to sign something asserting that the invention was non-obvious. Surprisingly, the lawyer was ok with this objection (maybe he'd heard it before). He pointed out that the patent application doesn't itself assert non-obviousness anywhere, it only requires me to state that I did the work (which was true). Non-obviousness is determined by the examiners. If their assessment differs from mine, that's not my fault.
I too am opposed to software patents and wish they would go away, but a situation where the stuff I work on doesn't get patented, but others patent stuff to use against me, is unilateral disarmanent, which is just stupid. I went ahead and signed the application and the patent issued a while later, adding one to the tens of thousands of other stupid and basically useless patents out there. That's not such a great situation, but I figure I signed up for it when I agreed to work for a non-free software startup to begin with. I similarly am opposed to excess carbon emissions but still drive my car more than I really have to.
The startup I worked at eventually failed, so now I write free software for a living. It doesn't pay as well but I like it better in other regards.
Anyway, my advice is sign the paper--if you didn't want to do that then you shouldn't have taken the money. Think of it as injecting one more piece of patent pollution into the software atmosphere. Hopefully there will be a mass invalidation of those patents sometime. Meanwhile, if you don't want to contribute to its worsening, consider that you're not working at the right place.
Filing for a patent does not mean you have a patent, it could take years of iterations etc to get a definite patent on something and even then people may still contest it. My suggestion is that if you're inclined to stick to your morals (which btw I don't totally agree with) , to go with the flow but sort of keep the filing so general and vague that any monkey could come along and contest it. At the end of the day you're not a patent lawyer, you can't be accused of not doing your job properly.
Also don't bite the hand that pays your salary.
Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure there's only a small set of things you can't be fired for in the US, like race, and anything else is legal.
You can't be fired for religious belief. Join the church of GNU. it already has a saint
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.
No, but FSF did.
> 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
That's Funny/Insightful, but it also raises the point that forwarding confidential company emails to a "timestamper" or a Gmail account may be sufficient grounds to fire you. I don't know what the labour laws are in various places, but if you signed any kind of an employment agreement or an NDA or something, read it carefully before forwarding unencrypted, internal company docs anywhere. Even if you didn't, make sure that if something that could be construed as a "trade secret" or "proprietary information" surfaces out in the wild, it can not be traced back to you.
Also, the more I think about it, the more I'm certain the parent was Insightful. Google does parse your email, and I wouldn't want to have to explain to my boss how Google managed to beat us on a patent for something we've spent a lot of resources on developing.
I don't care why you're posting AC
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.