Ask Slashdot: Handling Patented IP In a Job Interview?

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?

Comments

Are you patenting software?

[Anonymous Coward]

If so then fuck off.

Re:Are you patenting software?

[NetCow]

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."

License them and they are a plus

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:You guessed it: It depends

[Jane Q. Public]

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?

Patents, employment, and invention

[Immerman]

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.