Points 1 and 2 are sort of fascinating to me. As far as I'm aware, patents and copyrights are defined in the constitution as monopolies granted to "Authors and Inventors". Do you know how it is that the laws, which are supposed to build on the constitution, have extended ownership of copyrights and patents to corporate entities? It seems to be directly opposed to what the constitution allows.
I can see how inventors can grant _rights_ to their patents to other entities. I don't see how they can grant _ownership_ (whatever that really means) of their patents to third parties. The constitution allows the government to grant the monopoly to the inventor, and the inventor can license other entities to exploit the patent, but it seems like the ownership of the patent has to stay with the inventor. Perhaps it's just a semantic argument, but it's one that's been bothering me for a while.
Whatever definition of "ownership" you want to work with, you can come up with a grant of rights that equates to it, and a reasonable argument that people should be able to trade those rights for something more valuable to them.
So, in other words, I have no idea what your point is.
I don't think I've made any point yet; I'm mostly fishing for information from people who actually do know things, and trying to figure out if what's on my mind makes any sense. Two possible advantages (for people) of individual ownership of patents over corporate ownership:
Contracts require consideration. If I own something and sign a contract with you that allows you exclusive control over it, then I have to be getting something in return. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that there's some restrictions on consideration that can render a contract void if it is incredibly lopsided. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that a contract exchanging an invention earning billions per year for a five figure salary and a position that can be terminated on a whim might not be a valid contract. I really don't know about that though.
The other nice thing about personal ownership of copyrights and patents is that it makes the whole retroactive copyright extension and post-mortem copyright assignment transparently illegal. If only the creator of a work gets the monopoly over its distribution, then the termination of the creator must entail the termination of the monopoly. I'm very much not a fan of eternal copyright, so that alone would make me a bit happier.
I think I've probably threadjacked this way too far, so I'll just shut up now. Maybe I'll start a blog somewhere where you can rip holes in my half-assed ideas without us bothering anybody else :)
Only extremely rarely does a billion-dollar invention arise. When an employee signs an invention-assignment agreement with his/her employer, the employer is on the hook (usually) for a known salary, benefits, etc., in exchange for which the inventor is giving up his rights in inventions of unpredictable number and -significance. That usually gives the employer the bargaining power.
It's not always that way: I once had a software-company client that paid commissions to its product architects; the architect of one of the company's flagship products ended up making a ton of money, as did its shareholders. Sadly, companies that can do this successfully are few and far between.
Yeah, corporations are legal people, but can they invent or create? Maybe it is a legal truth that they can, but I'm guessing you could put a corporate charter in a room with pencils, paint brushes, raw material, etc for a million years and never get a creative work out of it. Can an entity unable to be creative actually have copyright or patents, under the wording of the US Constitution? I really am curious how we got to this state.
4. 'Ownership' is to a certain extent a legal fiction - it's simply a label we use to indicate when the government will use force, if necessary, to allow the 'owner' to do X and/or to prevent others from doing it.
5. In that sense, a patent or copyright conveys 'ownership' only in that the government will (upon a proper showing) enforce specified penalties against non-owners who do things they're not 'supposed' to do.
6. Congress long ago stated, in the relevant Acts of Congress, that patent- and copyright 'ownership' can be transferred to others, including corporations and other entities.
7. So basically, the brute fact is that 'ownership' of a patent or copyright can be transferred because: (i) Congress said so, and (ii) the guys with the black robes and gavels follow what Congress said, and (iii) the guys with the guns and badges go along, and (iv) ultimately, the guys with the BDUs and M-16s and tanks go along too.
8. The above doesn't automatically prove that Congress made the right call on this point -- but I don't think there's been much of a controversy about it in the past 200-plus years.
Ok, so basically corporations can "own" patents and copyrights because nobody's made a stink about it, and it seems to be working out pretty well?
The big reason I've been thinking about this is because I'm wondering what would happen if inventors and artists did own their work, and license it to their employers. Would science become a personally profitable career, or would contracts be written up that continued to pay out 5-figure salaries in exchange for the occasional billion dollar invention? Would a contract exchanging a five-figure salary for perpetual rights to an invention that earns billions per year be valid, or would terms get better for inventors? I really have no idea, but the thought has been bugging me for a few months now.
EDIT: it looks like HN has decided we've been talking to long, so I probably won't reply to any of your replies to me in a timely manner. It's been an interesting start of a discussion, anyhow :)
Every patent application that I have been involved in, I and my co-developers are listed as the inventors, not the company. All inventions are assigned to the company by our employment agreements.
Comments
Points 1 and 2 are sort of fascinating to me. As far as I'm aware, patents and copyrights are defined in the constitution as monopolies granted to "Authors and Inventors". Do you know how it is that the laws, which are supposed to build on the constitution, have extended ownership of copyrights and patents to corporate entities? It seems to be directly opposed to what the constitution allows.
The constitution grants them to inventors, who can assign them to others via contract. How is that unconstitutional?
I can see how inventors can grant _rights_ to their patents to other entities. I don't see how they can grant _ownership_ (whatever that really means) of their patents to third parties. The constitution allows the government to grant the monopoly to the inventor, and the inventor can license other entities to exploit the patent, but it seems like the ownership of the patent has to stay with the inventor. Perhaps it's just a semantic argument, but it's one that's been bothering me for a while.
Whatever definition of "ownership" you want to work with, you can come up with a grant of rights that equates to it, and a reasonable argument that people should be able to trade those rights for something more valuable to them.
So, in other words, I have no idea what your point is.
I don't think I've made any point yet; I'm mostly fishing for information from people who actually do know things, and trying to figure out if what's on my mind makes any sense. Two possible advantages (for people) of individual ownership of patents over corporate ownership:
Contracts require consideration. If I own something and sign a contract with you that allows you exclusive control over it, then I have to be getting something in return. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that there's some restrictions on consideration that can render a contract void if it is incredibly lopsided. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that a contract exchanging an invention earning billions per year for a five figure salary and a position that can be terminated on a whim might not be a valid contract. I really don't know about that though.
The other nice thing about personal ownership of copyrights and patents is that it makes the whole retroactive copyright extension and post-mortem copyright assignment transparently illegal. If only the creator of a work gets the monopoly over its distribution, then the termination of the creator must entail the termination of the monopoly. I'm very much not a fan of eternal copyright, so that alone would make me a bit happier.
I think I've probably threadjacked this way too far, so I'll just shut up now. Maybe I'll start a blog somewhere where you can rip holes in my half-assed ideas without us bothering anybody else :)
Only extremely rarely does a billion-dollar invention arise. When an employee signs an invention-assignment agreement with his/her employer, the employer is on the hook (usually) for a known salary, benefits, etc., in exchange for which the inventor is giving up his rights in inventions of unpredictable number and -significance. That usually gives the employer the bargaining power.
It's not always that way: I once had a software-company client that paid commissions to its product architects; the architect of one of the company's flagship products ended up making a ton of money, as did its shareholders. Sadly, companies that can do this successfully are few and far between.
In addition to this, don't forget that corporations are legal persons.
Edit: In the US and England at least.
Yeah, corporations are legal people, but can they invent or create? Maybe it is a legal truth that they can, but I'm guessing you could put a corporate charter in a room with pencils, paint brushes, raw material, etc for a million years and never get a creative work out of it. Can an entity unable to be creative actually have copyright or patents, under the wording of the US Constitution? I really am curious how we got to this state.
Continuing my numbering of before:
4. 'Ownership' is to a certain extent a legal fiction - it's simply a label we use to indicate when the government will use force, if necessary, to allow the 'owner' to do X and/or to prevent others from doing it.
5. In that sense, a patent or copyright conveys 'ownership' only in that the government will (upon a proper showing) enforce specified penalties against non-owners who do things they're not 'supposed' to do.
6. Congress long ago stated, in the relevant Acts of Congress, that patent- and copyright 'ownership' can be transferred to others, including corporations and other entities.
7. So basically, the brute fact is that 'ownership' of a patent or copyright can be transferred because: (i) Congress said so, and (ii) the guys with the black robes and gavels follow what Congress said, and (iii) the guys with the guns and badges go along, and (iv) ultimately, the guys with the BDUs and M-16s and tanks go along too.
8. The above doesn't automatically prove that Congress made the right call on this point -- but I don't think there's been much of a controversy about it in the past 200-plus years.
Ok, so basically corporations can "own" patents and copyrights because nobody's made a stink about it, and it seems to be working out pretty well?
The big reason I've been thinking about this is because I'm wondering what would happen if inventors and artists did own their work, and license it to their employers. Would science become a personally profitable career, or would contracts be written up that continued to pay out 5-figure salaries in exchange for the occasional billion dollar invention? Would a contract exchanging a five-figure salary for perpetual rights to an invention that earns billions per year be valid, or would terms get better for inventors? I really have no idea, but the thought has been bugging me for a few months now.
EDIT: it looks like HN has decided we've been talking to long, so I probably won't reply to any of your replies to me in a timely manner. It's been an interesting start of a discussion, anyhow :)
Every patent application that I have been involved in, I and my co-developers are listed as the inventors, not the company. All inventions are assigned to the company by our employment agreements.