One where software engineers pledge not to participate in formal patent creation. Because ultimately, all of the software patents out there were 'authored' by a software engineer. You have to have the person that actually invented the new implementation on the document.
Sure, your employment contract says that any IP you create on your employer's dime is owned by your employer. And so, sure, they could go out and pursue a patent for some new implementation that you invent. But you can stand up and say no, that you won't participate in the 'patentization' of your work (ie the formal, legal work to obtain the patent).
And without your involvement, it would likely fail. It certainly makes a statement internally and externally, at least.
How does this work? Well, you can make that commitment - in writing and verbally - when you join a company. Or you could simply state as much, formerly, in an email to your boss and superiors tonight when you get home.
With the software engineering talent market what it is anyone but a dope-shit code monkey has the leverage to dictate terms.
I usually enjoy your articles, but I don't agree with your view here at all. These kinds of pledges are not going to prevent NPE's from creating lawsuits and there will always be unscrupulous people willing to participate in the shakedowns.
Well, you can make that commitment - in writing and verbally - when you join a company.
With most employers, the statement is "For a period of one year after leaving employment, I will review and sign all documents needed to attain intellectual property protection for work done in the scope and course of employment."
Yes, exactly. Which is why you would redact that line and tell them you can only sign the contract without that clause.
In the current climate NO software engineer should be signing any employment contract handed to them without making some change - there is tons of opportunity to leverage better terms in the current market.
dotBen - do you work in Silicon Valley? Unless you are a CxO, there is almost never any modification of the employment contract, and certainly never any surrounding the IP elements at a VC funded company of any stature.
In 95% of the cases, if you won't sign the contract as provided, it's a deal breaker and you aren't hired. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions for special cases. And, clearly for non VC funded companies there is more flexibility - but the employee contract in the valley is pretty much an immutable template.
ghshephard - yes I live and work in SF and Silicon Valley and have done so for 6+ years.
I always dictate my own terms on contracts. I advise others to do so too.
Have you tried to hire engineers in Silicon Valley? I've heard of employees who've negotiated $50k cash signing bonus, 8 weeks holiday a year, a personal assistant to do their grocery shopping, agreement that the founder will personally invest $300k in the employee's future startup (these are separately, not the same contract).
One where software engineers pledge not to participate in formal patent creation. Because ultimately, all of the software patents out there were 'authored' by a software engineer. You have to have the person that actually invented the new implementation on the document.
Sure, your employment contract says that any IP you create on your employer's dime is owned by your employer. And so, sure, they could go out and pursue a patent for some new implementation that you invent. But you can stand up and say no, that you won't participate in the 'patentization' of your work (ie the formal, legal work to obtain the patent).
And without your involvement, it would likely fail. It certainly makes a statement internally and externally, at least.
How does this work? Well, you can make that commitment - in writing and verbally - when you join a company. Or you could simply state as much, formerly, in an email to your boss and superiors tonight when you get home.
With the software engineering talent market what it is anyone but a dope-shit code monkey has the leverage to dictate terms.