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.
Only if he knew that all work created during the time of employment in the US rightfully belongs to the employer....
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.
Wow it's amazing how if you hate something enough you can see everything as justifying your hatred.
Having copyright extend ever longer is both stupid and counterproductive, but it's no way comparable to changes that take away a creators right to profit from their creations. Arguably it makes the creations more valuable and makes it easier to invest in creating material for either a corporation or an individual. Contrast that with a law from the article that "If the Japanese government changes the patent law it means basically there would no compensation [for inventors]." Apples to Orangutans here.
With so many very good arguments about why copyright needs to be reformed there's no need to make bad ones.
Patent and copyright laws have never been about compensating inventors or creators. If they had been, they would be mandating actual payment to them.
Their construction as monopoly rights in a market where few individual creators or inventors will be scarce resources ensures that the negotiating power will be entirely on those in control of markets and distribution networks. The middle man can easily just pick up another provider of materials, while the originator is forced to take whatever deal is offered or face being unable to reach customers at all. Modern technology has slightly improved the situation with better opportunities, but ultimately, the deck is stacked solidly against the creators.
But that's working as it's designed. The purpose of monopoly rights has always been to provide stable market power and protection from free market competition for the friends of the crown. Creators are merely the convenient, powerless and easily replaceable excuse.
Spend your personal time and resources at inveting.
If you spend your worktime and resources from your job for your invention I don't see why you personally should get a patent. If my boss pays me to clean toilets and I invent something then there might be a point, but if my boss pays me (and gives me staff to freely use) to invent stuff I don't see the merit.
He created the work while employed by someone. That someone provided him with all the equipment and capabilities to do the research why the hell should he be awarded the patent?
If you are part of a team who gets the patent? 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.
As for the education system. Correct me if I am wrong but this guy who is now holder of a nobel prize is the product of that education system.... There seems to be a serious axe to grind there with a feeling that he didn't get his due and I think he is drawing a very long bow.
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.
Clearly this means that the patent money is not a great catalyst for the invention he made.
How do you come to this conclusion? It is more likely that he worked on research in the hopes that he will share the profits that it generates. Think of it as stock based compensation. You would work before you see the money, if you do good, you will see money when the stock price increases.
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.
You don't get to renegotiate afterwards. Your incentive to do stuff at work is your salary.
Why not? If you have the bargaining position to negotiate a better deal after the fact why shouldn't you? Some naive sense of obligation or fairness to a company that doesn't reciprocate? Don't be absurd. Some work cannot be done without having the resources of a company behind you and no one ever knows if they are going to create something really valuable ahead of time. Maybe the guy was in a tough situation when he was first employed and wasn't in a position to walk away despite some odious contractual terms. If the guy has the ability to get paid for the full value of his work then he should seek to do so.
I run a company and if someone were to unexpectedly create something that benefited the company greatly, I'd be a selfish prick to not share substantially of the rewards with that person. It doesn't mean the company has to hand over all the benefits but sharing a substantial percent of the rewards with an inventor is quite fair.
If you are writing code for a living you will create new things ever day to solve the problem you encounter.
That doesn't mean every problem you solve will be worth millions to the company. This guy did something FAR beyond the expected value of his services and it's not unreasonable for him to ask to be compensated accordingly even after the fact. While the company doesn't legally have to do anything, it doesn't follow that they shouldn't make sure the guy is well compensated for his efforts.
To be honest, what I can't figure out is why people aren't just...writing their own laws. I keep seeing first-world anarchists on reddit (and slashdot, and the comments sections on CNN, etc) call for violent revolution and they never seem to get around to answering "and then what?" Well, first they never answer "exactly who is it you want on the chopping block? Name names."
All the laws are online. You've got a text editor and wikis are free. Think there are holes in the constitution? Okay, show us how you'd plug them. Don't like FCC regulations? Okay, rewrite them and post them. Gosh, I bet if people do that, others might even think their ideas were good enough to...I dunno...vote for? Get enough people to go along with those ideas (which would be the end result of the blood-in-the-streets bit) and you can even skip that whole thing!
But no, no, that would be boring and tedious work. Much better to advocate blood and murder and figure it all out later.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.