Slashdot Mirror


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?

43 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. You guessed it: It depends by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

                    Create proper price tags in your porfolio for the value of your patents, whether it's per-click or per sold unit. If you get a dream job, like janitor on the ISS, throw them in for free. If it's not, offer a discount, or say they aren't included.

  2. Are you patenting software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If so then fuck off.

    1. Re:Are you patenting software? by ZahrGnosis · · 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, https://www.google.com/patents/US20030187867, and https://www.google.com/patents/US7185023, and I'd love to get feedback on how to deal with that aspect of the issue.

    2. Re:Are you patenting software? by NetCow · · 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."

    3. Re:Are you patenting software? by SkOink · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      ---- I'll take you in a Hunt deathmatch any day.
    4. Re:Are you patenting software? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      Totally agree.

      Oh, and if you're patenting business processes, take a leap off a short pier.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    5. Re:Are you patenting software? by ZahrGnosis · · Score: 4, 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).

      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?

    6. Re:Are you patenting software? by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 4, 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".

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    7. Re:Are you patenting software? by ZahrGnosis · · Score: 2

      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 computer that used to be done without one should not be patent-able at ALL. For other, truly "novel" inventions (and I realize there's always contention there), I tend to follow the EFF's guidance. Their current recommendations -- their 7 steps -- don't get rid of software patents entirely. They limit their duration, which I'd surely agree with, and require more specificity, which again i agree with.

      But you're accusing me of being "antisocial" (I'd think bringing this up on Slashdot is the opposite of anti-social; that's certainly my intent), and "wrong", while I honestly do struggle with the issue, as I think many people do. The EFF and FSF don't seem to fully agree on how a software inventor should handle this. I hold both groups in high regard, but there is certainly not unanimous consent in the slashdot crowd). I'm familiar with the register allocation history (maybe not as much as some). I had closer contact with the photo-mosaic patents that were at issue some years ago, and I always find the codec IP issues (MP3, H.264, GIF, etc.) fascinating and troublesome. In fact, I worried over the use of "IP" in the original post, due to Stallman's position on the phrase (and in retrospect probably used the term too much).

      I intend to focus on these issues, and I certainly don't want to be accused down the road of being similar to any of the debacles you cited. I'll let my actions speak for themselves as time unfolds. I'm optimistic that there's a "right" way to behave, within the current system, that is ethical while still affording the protections that patents are idealistically designed for (even if reality is not ideal). Maybe we disagree on those details. In any case my reason for posting this question to slashdot was different and, importantly, time sensitive, so I'm going to stop veering off topic (I felt your post was nice enough to deserve a response).

      I do appreciate the even-handed and non-trolling response, and the advice on estate planning; I have a nice flowchart in my will; I'll make sure to add the legal assets to it, and yes, donating them to someone like the EFF is the path I'd like to take -- hopefully it won't matter by then. Thanks!

    8. Re:Are you patenting software? by smaddox · · Score: 3, 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.

    9. Re: Are you patenting software? by TheP4st · · Score: 3, 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

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
  3. IP is licensed separately. by Animats · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:IP is licensed separately. by shrikel · · Score: 4, 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. ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
  4. Be straight by realilskater · · 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.

  5. Leave them off your resume. by khasim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    If it is not part of the deal then leave it off your resume.

    My question is, how should I treat licensing of the patent as a topic with respect to the topic of my employment?

    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.

  6. Patent attorney chiming in by reebmmm · · 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.

  7. They're hiring you... by The+Technomancer · · Score: 2

    ...not your patent portfolio.

    If they want the use of your patented IP, they can license the technology or buy the rights to the IP from you.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

    -- Arthur C. Clarke

    1. Re:They're hiring you... by gnupun · · 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.

      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?

    2. Re:They're hiring you... by The+Technomancer · · Score: 2

      Then, as the holder of the patent, you have the option to not license the patent to them if the monetary offer for a license is not sufficient. If that blows up the hiring process, consider yourself lucky that you fund out the sort of assholes you'd be working for prior to signing the paperwork and starting the gig. If you've got patents under your belt, it's not like you'll be hurting for work, since it pretty much acts as a credential signifying that you'll do good work.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

      -- Arthur C. Clarke

  8. Separate by Moof123 · · Score: 3, 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.

  9. Talk to a lawyer by Vladus2000 · · 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.

  10. Create a LTD company by Anonymous Coward · · 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

  11. Creating a mine field. by edtice1559 · · Score: 2

    You probably disclaim enforcement of the patents as part of your normal employment agreement which should pretty much solve everything. They are included. The patents themselves don't make you more valuable, but rather the skills required to get them. That should be reflected in salary negotiations. If you bring up the subject during an interview, you will strike fear into the heart of the person interviewing you. Before they can make an offer, they will have to consult legal, HR, and a host of other corporate entities whose knee-jerk reaction is always to say no. Impress the potential employer first with your technical skills and personality and then with your excellent salary negotiation abilities! Consider yourself well compensated for the patents.

  12. Consult a lawyer by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  13. Job Interview by irq-1 · · Score: 2

    Well here's something we don't see everyday: a "story" about job interviews on SlashDice!

  14. Duh! by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny

    You should implement your patented IP and then when you leave you should sue them for patent infringement!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Duh! by aberglas · · 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 to himself so that he can patent them later.

    2. Re:Duh! by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah! I mean think about it! If you're a patent troll, are you going to get more business by sitting back and hoping someone invents the thing you patented, or are you going to get more business by sending out an army of coders to make SURE something you've patented gets invented? Ah it's such a brilliant idea I should go get a business process patent for it!

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    3. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Great idea. I'll patent that business method right now, sucker.

  15. License them and they are a plus by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  16. Not on my watch by Kreegalor · · Score: 2

    What you should have done is created a holding company to "own" the patent. This creates a disconnect between you and your patent. It would be much like when you work on a patent for a company. You can list it on your resume/cv as something you worked on. I'd be worried if someone applied for a job with some patents in that industry that made a point to use that to get the job. I'd see it as a ploy to go "If you hire me, you have to also license my patent". Hell, if I found out you owned the holding company with the patent, I'd probably not hire you for the same reason.

  17. Re:You guessed it: It depends by Jane+Q.+Public · · 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?

  18. Re: talk to a lawyer by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 2

    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 my idea before I could.

    I had no recourse as the system wasn't yet patent pending and the developee no longer worked for the company. I found out via his profile on LinkedIn and he was offshore.

    My advise, if you have IP, protect it. If they want you and your patented ideas, make the licensing part of the agreement. You decide what is fair market value

    While I don't partucilarly like sw parents, you are entitled to protect what you invent. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

  19. Resume by meerling · · Score: 2

    Your patented IP is essentially part of your resume. If you wish to mention it to showcase your skill, you are welcome to it. That of course in no means makes it available to the potential employer without them paying for or licensing it just like everybody else. No more than someone working as a bartender at a different bar would be expected to share their tips with the new bar.

    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)

  20. Re: lawyer up by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  21. Re:You guessed it: It depends by arth1 · · Score: 3, 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.

  22. Contract by Mr+44 · · Score: 2

    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).

  23. Patents, employment, and invention by Immerman · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    1. Re:Patents, employment, and invention by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      You'll need to read those clauses carefully, and they're usually sprinkled across at least 2 sections, if not 3. You need to read them separately and as a whole, and redline anything that's unreasonable or detrimental. Note that doing so may cost you the job. Some companies are not flexible at all in this area. However, depending upon your state, those clauses may not be enforceable, or truly be difficult to enforce. Some restrict this to use of company owned equipment and/or on company time. This one can be relatively benign, especially if you're using your own equipment.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    2. Re:Patents, employment, and invention by Matheus · · Score: 2

      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 all technical staff at my firm ended up signing instead of the original. Fun moment in my career for sure.

      As for IP and employment it can be very lucrative. My most recent previous employer had at least a few employees on staff who's primary job responsibility was to keep their IP in house. They collected nice fat paychecks to do very little (essentially support for implementations and debugging of potential issues with the patented algorithms). The key is knowing the value of your IP to your potential employer and take no less than everything they are willing to compensate for it without actually giving up ownership.

  24. Re: You guessed it: It depends by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  25. Re:You guessed it: It depends by FireFury03 · · Score: 2

    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)

  26. Re:"headofficed" - LOL by BVis · · Score: 3, Informative

    Verbing wierds language.

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.