|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |