John VanSickle wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> John VanSickle wrote:
>>> In any event, work-for-hire agreements would be replaced by 
>>> agreements under which the payee got the first option for licensing.
>>
>> Yet someone complained about patents, and that's 100% exactly how 
>> patents work, so I'm not sure what the benefit would be.
> 
> Under the current rules, the IP belongs to the employer for the life of 
> the IP.

What country are you talking about?  Patents are owned by the inventor and 
licensed to the employer. A corporation is *unable* to patent anything.

 > Following the US Constitution would make this arrangement
> unenforceable, because the law could recognize only the creator's 
> ownership, and nobody else's.

It already does.

> Granted, the employer could require lifetime licensing as a condition of 
> employment,

That's exactly how it works.

 > but at least if the employer goes bankrupt, the creator
> would retain the right to his work, instead of the IP going to some 
> third party.

Um, no. The license is an asset of the bankrupt company.


I take it you've never patented anything?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message