Slashdot Mirror
Japanese Nobel Laureate Blasts His Country's Treatment of Inventors
schwit1 writes: Shuji Nakamura won the 2014 Nobel Prize in Physics (along with two other scientists) for his work inventing blue LEDs. But long ago he abandoned Japan for the U.S. because his country's culture and patent law did not favor him as an inventor. Nakamura has now blasted Japan for considering further legislation that would do more harm to inventors.
"In the early 2000s, Nakamura had a falling out with his employer and, it seemed, all of Japan. Relying on a clause in Japan's patent law, article 35, that assigns patents to individual inventors, he took the unprecedented step of suing his former employer for a share of the profits his invention was generating. He eventually agreed to a court-mediated $8 million settlement, moved to the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) and became an American citizen. During this period he bitterly complained about Japan's treatment of inventors, the country's educational system and its legal procedures. 'The problem is now the Japanese government wants to eliminate patent law article 35 and give all patent rights to the company. If the Japanese government changes the patent law it means basically there would no compensation [for inventors].'"
There is a similar problem with copyright law in the U.S., where changes to the law in the 1970s and 1990s have made it almost impossible for copyrights to ever expire. The changes favor the corporations rather than the individuals who might actually create the work.
"In the early 2000s, Nakamura had a falling out with his employer and, it seemed, all of Japan. Relying on a clause in Japan's patent law, article 35, that assigns patents to individual inventors, he took the unprecedented step of suing his former employer for a share of the profits his invention was generating. He eventually agreed to a court-mediated $8 million settlement, moved to the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) and became an American citizen. During this period he bitterly complained about Japan's treatment of inventors, the country's educational system and its legal procedures. 'The problem is now the Japanese government wants to eliminate patent law article 35 and give all patent rights to the company. If the Japanese government changes the patent law it means basically there would no compensation [for inventors].'"
There is a similar problem with copyright law in the U.S., where changes to the law in the 1970s and 1990s have made it almost impossible for copyrights to ever expire. The changes favor the corporations rather than the individuals who might actually create the work.
This is nonsence. The entire reason for the patent is to bring knowledge into the public domain, to stop that knowledge being hidden as a trade secret. The twenty year monopoly is the bargain the state makes with the inventor for that knowledge.
This is just idiotic. In America if you're work for hire the company owns your patents unless you invent them on your own time using your own resources. He's a damned fool, in America he wouldn't have gotten a cent if he'd tried to sue his employer for royalties unless his contract expressly granted royalties.
Entirely depends on the state. Some allow companies to claim all patents filed by their employees as innovation for hire in some circumstances.
You are incorrect. Patents and copyrights done on your own time and not relating to company assets are yours.
You might want to re-read your employment contract. It is not uncommon for your contract to state that stuff you work on during the term of your employment belongs to the company unless you have made prior arrangements. At my company, unless you get agreement in writing specifying what you are working on in your own time, everything belongs to the company.
It seems to me only logical that the entity that commissioned the work, invested the resources and made it happen ie the company should own the patent.
What you're proposing sounds like zero incentive to invent while being employed. Doesn't make much sense psychologically.
$8 Million is quite low if you know what this guy's invention stimulated across various fields
I think just is if one agrees with the employer about a certain split ratio when signing for the job. It seems that here in Germany while employed at a university the inventor is entitled to 30% of the revenue achieved by commercialization.
Oh! That's why we have had an influx of a LOT of US researchers recently. Our copyright (which is, more accurately, actually called "creators right") pretty much disallows such a clause.
Might be a reason why lots of people prefer to do research in Europe where their employers can only offer a shared exploitation of stuff you do in your private time. Usually it's not the worst idea to agree to something like this, since the company usually has far better means to monetize your inventions and has less of an incentive to screw you over than any competitor (since they usually want to retain you in their team, too). But they can neither force you to do so nor simply push you aside, what you do on your own time is your own.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
> As for being the source of the innovation, there is no question that he is a brilliant scientist. But there are lots of brilliant scientists. If another had been given the same job as him there is nothing to say they wouldn't have been the one to have come up with blue leds.
Anyone who knows the field would say so. Other colors for LED's were a long sought goal at the time, and the new technologies required several genuine developments and insights. When told to stop working on it at his company, he continued the research on his own, with materials he paid for out of his own salary. His was a classic case of a dedicated scientist completing a tack considered too difficult by his superiors.
I'm afraid you need to look up his case. His employers said "stop" and ended the funding, especially of technician time and equipment. He then completed the work on his own time, out of his own salary, with equipment and materials he bought. The company did wind up owning the patent. But this is a case where the inventor did, indeed, act as a dedicated scientist and engineer, not merely as an employee under managerial direction.
Clearly in this case the court disagrees with you, and I'll try to explain why. From TFA:
"Nakamura, who held only a master's degree and was toiling practically on his own at a small specialty chemical manufacturer in rural Shikoku, cracked the fabrication challenges to get a bright blue LED that was commercially viable."
So he did a lot of the work on his own time and with his own company. More over, in Japan, like many counties, "you are free to leave" is not an excuse for bad working conditions or contracts. Courts can and do decide that things are unfair, even if you agreed to them at the time.
In Japan patents are awarded to individuals. Employment contracts can stipulate that things invented at work have to be turned over to the company, but they can only do so within the bounds of contract law. In this case since Nakamura put in a lot of work and money on his own to develop a commercially viable fabrication method for blue LEDs it doesn't matter that the contract says the people he was working for own everything he patents, because he was not compensated for that work and the law says that he must be.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC