Errors of technology transfer №4 / “Errors of authorship” + APDATE
By helping to bring development and business to foreign markets, it is necessary to constantly observe the same mistakes, and as a result - failures and losses.
The losses are all the more offensive, given that these errors are repeatedly described and analyzed in dozens of open and publicly available sources.
Without in any way pretending to be new and exclusive, we will try to collect in this series of posts a dozen of the most frequent, obvious and relatively easily obviated errors, the elimination of which greatly increases the chances of success.
For convenience, error descriptions will sort by increasing their complexity.
========================================
" Authorship Mistakes "
REMARK: Everything that is written below concerns any intangible objects existing both initially within the IT industry and outside it, but which can get into it (they took an algorithm from a scientific article, took a picture for the interface from a scientific article, borrowed the motive for dubbing of on-screen buttons, etc.).
')
Mistake number 1 “Confusion between copyright and non-copyright”
This error is not just frequent, but ubiquitous.
The author of an intangible object (algorithm / program / picture / music, etc.) is recognized as a subject (person, citizen, stateless person, etc.), by whose actions this object was created.
Before an object is created (born), no one but the author may know about its very existence, but after the act of creation (birth), the object begins to live its own life, and the author has its own.
Accordingly, they both have their own, and completely different rights.
The author - there are " copyright ", or as they are called " personal non-property " rights.
They consist in the rights:
1. Call yourself the author of this object; (" I, Vasya - I am the author of this algorithm / program / image ");
2. Specify your name as the name of the author of the object; (" Algorithm / program / picture.№5. Author - Vasya ");
and (with significant limitations)
3. Give the object a certain " name " (name). (" Vasin Table Hashing Algorithm ")
This is the “ copyright ” right!
The meaning of these rights is that you can prove your (and not your) authorship, and require (with some restrictions) to specify the name of the author as the name of the creator of the object.
These rights are protected indefinitely, they are inalienable (cannot be taken away) and non-transferable (cannot be transferred), and the waiver of these rights is legally null and void (has no power).
On this list of " copyright " - is exhausted.
All other rights are not copyright.
And most important of them - the right to use the object.
(sometimes incorrectly referred to as " property ")
The right to use the object at the request of the author can be transferred to any other person under the contract.
The transfer may occur before the object is born (the publishing contract for writing the story, ordering the artist a picture, office development), at the time of this appearance, or after the creation.
The composition of the rights to be transferred, and the conditions of the transfer, are determined by the parties and are fixed in the contract, subject to the requirements of the laws of different jurisdictions.
(PS. If the author is a subject - does not have legal capacity (drawing elephants, singing dogs, mentally ill, etc.) then all rights to use objects (but not copyrights!) - belong to the author’s guardian initially)
Mistake number 2 "Co-authorship"
In all that concerns the “ author's ” relationship, at the first stage there are two sides - the “ author ” and the “ second side ” (publisher, customer, employer, etc.).
But the " author " is not obliged to be a " man ."
He - maybe the team (Vasya + Peter + Kohl).
All members of this team who co-create the object are co-authors.
The rights of all co-authors are completely equal.
Accordingly, if they then begin to argue with each other, divide these rights, and determine the proportion and contribution of each - only the court can, and even then - very subjectively (from which the court will know what and how it was in fact).
What would be long and tedious not to understand the relationship of the authors, they are before, or after the creation of the object, but strictly BEFORE they go to offer their newly created object to someone else - must conclude between themselves so-called " collective author's agreement " in which to register all the issues of the subsequent use of the object being created / created.
EXAMPLE:
"The author's contract number 6585 from" 12 "January 2013
Authors: Vasya, Petya, Kolya
Plenipotentiary representative for the sale of the object: Vasya
Minimum selling price: 100 rubles.
The sharing of the income from the sale of the object: Vasya - 50%, Pete - 25%, Kohle - 25%. ”
etc.
If the author is not one, but there are several of them, and there is no such agreement, no meaningful sledka with the object is made - it will not work (any of the co-authors can challenge this deal).
Mistake number 3 "Wrong co-authorship"
- Unwanted Collaboration
The rights of all co-authors are completely equal.
One of such rights is the right to continue using the object to create other objects on its basis or with its use.
EXAMPLE # 1:
Vasya, Petya, Kolya did R & D for hashing tables (in the research report - all three authors stand), then Kohl dropped, and Vasya and Petya refined the R & D methodology, and patented it for themselves, and sold the patent to the microsoft software.
Three years later, Kohl surfaced, and demanded the inclusion of himself among the co-authors of the patent and his 33% of the profit. (if they did not have a collective copyright on R & D - see above)
EXAMPLE # 2:
Vasya, Petya, Kolya - they nakropali an article describing the methods of hashing the tables, then Kolya disappeared, and Vasya and Petya finalized the methodology, and based on it they made a program that they sold to microsoft.
Three years later, Kohl surfaced, demanding the inclusion of himself among the co-authors of the program and his 33% of the profit. (if they did not have a collective copyright on R & D - see above)
MORALITY:
Doing now think what will happen next.
In the first case, if a patent was applied in R & D, it was possible to distinguish the patent part (hashing) in R & D as the work of Vasya and Petit, and Kohl could give something else.
In the second, to split the article into two parts, as a collection, and the part of hashing, to unsubscribe Vasya and Pete (so that they are their authors), and Kohl to put the part about something else as the author.
- Unexpected collaboration
The rights of all co-authors are completely equal.
To use an object with collective authorship - you need to get the consent of all its authors.
The authors are all those who participated in the creation of the object.
EXAMPLE # 1:
Vasya came up with a method of hashing tables, climbed on HabraHabr, and put a post on it.
Petya read the post, and in the papers he proposed improvement No. 1.
Total: The author of the original methodology - Vasya, the authors of the improvement number 1 - Vasya + Peter.
EXAMPLE # 2:
Vasya came up with a method of hashing tables and wanted to put it into a program.
Vasya came on a start-up weekend, met Petya and Kohl there, carried them off with the idea, and they drank coffee for two days, discussed the methodology, and sculpted the code.
Total: The author of the original methodology is Vasya, the authors of the resulting methodology and program are Vasya + Petya + Kohl + (some girl with glasses, whose name no one asked).
MORALITY:
Doing now think what will happen next.
In the first case, the situation is saved by the footer of the post with the text " all improvements and enhancements to this technique are the property of Vasya . "
In the second case - a bit more complicated, since many actions are performed in a non-documentary oral form, but this is fixable.
It is possible one day before the start-up weekend on HabraHabr in the " ideas for start-ups " section to start a blog of the project's working group, and to use the blog for the work of the group, which will have the above footer.
- Improvements in implementation
This situation is the most frequent and most important case of the emergence of the " unexpected collaboration " from the previous paragraph.
Ideas and developments in the process of bringing to the market, and even more so the subsequent operation - develop, adapt and optimize, and as a result can change quite dramatically.
The method of hashing tables for a week can be transformed into improvement No. 1, and it, in another month, into improvement No. 2, which in its turn, after a month of practical implementation, can be used to optimize memory load.
The phrase “all adaptations, improvements and improvements of the present methodology are the property of Vasya” - covers only table hashing, and will no longer apply to the way of optimizing memory load.
There are three possible ways to work with such situations.
A) The original text should be attributed to the phrase "the operator / adapter (Petya) is obliged to immediately notify Vasya about all changes, adaptations, improvements and improvements in the methodology, and to take the actions necessary to assign Vasya the rights to these changes, improvements and improvements "
B) Establish joint ownership of the phrases "... must notify about changes .... ", And then by choice:
- " everything is transferred to Vasya, but Vasya gives Petya the right to use the improvements ";
- " everything is transferred to Petya, but Petya gives Vasya the right to use the improvements ";
- "the parties establish the procedure for the use of improvements as a result of negotiations . "
C) All improvements / changes / improvements are transferred to Petya and he, for example, pays Vasya% of the received profit.
If these options (of course, not all at once, but some one of them) are not prescribed, then it will be very difficult to eliminate the wrong collaboration as a result of such an error, but it can greatly complicate the sale of the decision.
Mistake number 4 "service development"
Copyrights to anyone (except plagiarists and graphomaniac) are not needed. (see Error # 1)
To extract profit from an object, only rights to use this object are relevant.
The right to use the object can be transferred by the author to another person under the contract.
Such a contract can be targeted, to create a specific object (pile the interface of the Word program, write a test suite for the Excel program, etc.), or a framework one to create many such objects on an ongoing basis (with constant work in state, or on an external contract).
Such a development is called " service ", and all rights to it (of course, except copyright) belong to the customer.
For this purpose, in the target contract - specific parameters and requirements for the object are specified (what exactly and how exactly should be created).
And in the framework - the mechanism of issuing tasks for the development by the customer / employer and the reception created (the programmer from the team leader comes to the post office with the TK program, schedule and test suite, the programmer sculpts the code, runs the tests, writes the service, starts the code and sends to the team leader, etc.).
If you make a mistake and do not create a service development mode for a technical solution (the author, according to his staff list and job description, is not obliged to create this solution, and the employer / customer did not formalize him to create this particular solution in the form of a specific order), then that the author has created this decision by itself, of his own will, respectively, it belongs to him.
EXAMPLE:
Vasya and Peter came up with a method of hashing tables, piled a C ++ program and began selling it to Kohl.
Kohl inserted it into his utility package, and began to market it.
Things went well, and the prospect of selling a package (in the form of a sale of a Kolya startup) to microsoft loomed.
Microsoft needs one owner for the transaction, with all the rights.
The snot hanging on the sides in the form of incomprehensible Vasya and singing to him are not needed.
In addition, both Vasya and Petya themselves in this situation are most likely to roll out the sponges, and they will want more than they wanted from Kolya.
Therefore, Kolya hired Vasya and Petya to his staff, wrote in the staffing table and job description that their function - to sculpt the table hashing program in Java, and a memo from 1 date (duplicated to the notary just in case) instructed them to scroll the table hashing program in Java .
After sculpturing, he accepted the program on written help, paid them a salary, and a premium.
And then - severance pay. (why do they need them if the program is already his)
Mistake number 5 "Authorship and $"
You can complete the topic with the most innocuous of the author's mistakes, - the mistake of not using the mechanisms of authorship to solve related problems.
EXAMPLE # 1:
Vasya wants to legally get a profit from his own company.
It is not profitable to get ego as a salary or as dividends due to tax rates.
Vasya sculpts a utility model (copies someone else’s from the last bulletin
Rospatent, puts his full name and submits as his own), after which he licenses it dearly to his native enterprise.
And receives from him legal and legal royalties.
EXAMPLE # 2:
Same as above, only Vasya is registered as an employee, a patent for a utility model is issued for a company (the author is still he, copyright is not alienable (if you forget it, read the article from the beginning)), and he receives $ as an author reward for creating a model.
===============================================
Previously:
- " Individualization errors "
- " Disclosure Errors "
- " Errors offshore "
Further:
- " IP Security Error "
- " Errors of budget money "
- " Errors of double technologies "
- " Toxic Investment Mistakes "
- " License Errors "
- " Positioning errors "
APDATE
"one. Vasya performed work tasks. During the work, he invented an algorithm that is extremely promising. Vasya took a day off, finalized the algorithm (described the utility model and so on, actually designed his designs in a form suitable for patenting) and issued a patent for it. I returned to work and offered my company to buy this patent from him. ”
Parse in order.
He won't be able to get a patent for time off, a patent for an IT invention is at least a year, but not the point.
The key is - “Vasya performed work tasks. In the course of work, he invented an algorithm . ”
If the algorithm is page caching, and according to the staffing table and job description, he is hired to develop page caching algorithms, and last month he was assigned to develop a page caching algorithm by page service, then this is pure service development. (he was hired for that, and that’s what the money pays for)
If he came up with an algorithm for converting color during color correction, then this algorithm is completely his, and he can dispose of it at his discretion.
Again, in such cases, you just need to take those documents on which Vasya works in the company and read what is written there.
And if it says something like “The Contractor is obliged to immediately notify the Customer about the protectable objects of intellectual property created during the implementation of this contract, as well as inform the Customer ...” , then there are no questions - no.
It all depends on the adequacy of its employers / customers.
If they are not idiots, then Vasya is hired by a set of documents, where there is a special agreement on service development, a non-disclosure agreement, an agreement on non-competition, an agreement on non-proliferation of technological experience.
We make such a package for companies for $ 500 (and they only need to arrange service offices on time), and any foreign company already has it.
If Vasya was hired by the left contract, where some kind of garbage is written, which has nothing to do with his real work, and Vasya doesn’t have any job description, staffing list, much less help handicrafts (or they don’t have a word about caching ), then everything that he will do - him (and if he is not a fool, - he can take care of the results of his work colleagues (which is not so rare)).
2. Vasya with his new algorithm (developed as part of his official duties) arrived at the conference. During the conference, Peter publicly proposed several improvements. Vasya inserted them into the algorithm. Six months later, Petya demanded payments from Vasya for using his improvements.
All that is publicly announced loses the possibility of patent protection. (see “Disclosure Errors” ).
Therefore, reporting on the new algorithm Vasya to him - he had patent pending in his pocket.
After the public announcement of improvements, neither Vasya nor Petya can patent them.
(although Vasya, taking into account what he heard, may slightly modify the patent application, for example, by developing and detailing the heard thoughts)
Petr will not be able to demand payments from Vasi’s company for using his improvements six months later, since no company in his right mind and sober memory (we exclude companies of the Russian Federation for obvious reasons) will enter into their economic development an incomprehensible development.
You can request payments either for patent infringement (which is not the case here), or for infringement of copyright.
Copyright is the right to works of science, literature, art, etc.
In this case, it is a work of science.
The only thing that Petya can then do is demand recognition of himself as the co-author of improvements, respectively - mentioning himself as a co-author in all subsequent publications about these improvements (he will automatically increase the citation index).
Copyright and use rights are different things (see Error “Confusion between copyright and non-copyright” ).
, , ( — ), «» ( — , patent pending) — .
3. ( ) . ( ) , . . .
— , — ( ), .
— .
- — , .
, .
-- patent pending- , .
( , , - — ( — ))
patent pending , — , , — .
4. , , , , , ?
, ( , ).
(/ + + + ), — , (+, — ).
— .
— , .
( — , — )
— , , - ( — ).
( , ), , (/ + + + ) — - $1.
, , ( ), , , .
5. . . . . 1$?
, / $1, … .
, — … .
, , , (. ).
, , — .
"… , ..." + "… ..." ..
, / $1, — .
— , .
« — »
6. , , , . , , 1234 , . : , . , , : . , : « . , , , . , , .»
( « IP» ), .
, , .
, — , , — .
( — , , ( ))
— .
— : www.business-magazine.ru/mech_new/experience/pub113864/page/all
( , ( ) )
, , , — , .
— , , — , , , , .. etc.
— , .
( - -, , , .., — , , — , — , 5 — )
— , — , , , 100% .
— 2 .
№ :
, — , (. ).
№ :
, — .
:
1370.
...
5. , , , , , . , . :
— () ,
— , , .
— .
— « » .
( — , , , - , , — , )
The losses are all the more offensive, given that these errors are repeatedly described and analyzed in dozens of open and publicly available sources.
Without in any way pretending to be new and exclusive, we will try to collect in this series of posts a dozen of the most frequent, obvious and relatively easily obviated errors, the elimination of which greatly increases the chances of success.
For convenience, error descriptions will sort by increasing their complexity.
========================================
" Authorship Mistakes "
REMARK: Everything that is written below concerns any intangible objects existing both initially within the IT industry and outside it, but which can get into it (they took an algorithm from a scientific article, took a picture for the interface from a scientific article, borrowed the motive for dubbing of on-screen buttons, etc.).
')
Mistake number 1 “Confusion between copyright and non-copyright”
This error is not just frequent, but ubiquitous.
The author of an intangible object (algorithm / program / picture / music, etc.) is recognized as a subject (person, citizen, stateless person, etc.), by whose actions this object was created.
Before an object is created (born), no one but the author may know about its very existence, but after the act of creation (birth), the object begins to live its own life, and the author has its own.
Accordingly, they both have their own, and completely different rights.
The author - there are " copyright ", or as they are called " personal non-property " rights.
They consist in the rights:
1. Call yourself the author of this object; (" I, Vasya - I am the author of this algorithm / program / image ");
2. Specify your name as the name of the author of the object; (" Algorithm / program / picture.№5. Author - Vasya ");
and (with significant limitations)
3. Give the object a certain " name " (name). (" Vasin Table Hashing Algorithm ")
This is the “ copyright ” right!
The meaning of these rights is that you can prove your (and not your) authorship, and require (with some restrictions) to specify the name of the author as the name of the creator of the object.
These rights are protected indefinitely, they are inalienable (cannot be taken away) and non-transferable (cannot be transferred), and the waiver of these rights is legally null and void (has no power).
On this list of " copyright " - is exhausted.
All other rights are not copyright.
And most important of them - the right to use the object.
(sometimes incorrectly referred to as " property ")
The right to use the object at the request of the author can be transferred to any other person under the contract.
The transfer may occur before the object is born (the publishing contract for writing the story, ordering the artist a picture, office development), at the time of this appearance, or after the creation.
The composition of the rights to be transferred, and the conditions of the transfer, are determined by the parties and are fixed in the contract, subject to the requirements of the laws of different jurisdictions.
(PS. If the author is a subject - does not have legal capacity (drawing elephants, singing dogs, mentally ill, etc.) then all rights to use objects (but not copyrights!) - belong to the author’s guardian initially)
Mistake number 2 "Co-authorship"
In all that concerns the “ author's ” relationship, at the first stage there are two sides - the “ author ” and the “ second side ” (publisher, customer, employer, etc.).
But the " author " is not obliged to be a " man ."
He - maybe the team (Vasya + Peter + Kohl).
All members of this team who co-create the object are co-authors.
The rights of all co-authors are completely equal.
Accordingly, if they then begin to argue with each other, divide these rights, and determine the proportion and contribution of each - only the court can, and even then - very subjectively (from which the court will know what and how it was in fact).
What would be long and tedious not to understand the relationship of the authors, they are before, or after the creation of the object, but strictly BEFORE they go to offer their newly created object to someone else - must conclude between themselves so-called " collective author's agreement " in which to register all the issues of the subsequent use of the object being created / created.
EXAMPLE:
"The author's contract number 6585 from" 12 "January 2013
Authors: Vasya, Petya, Kolya
Plenipotentiary representative for the sale of the object: Vasya
Minimum selling price: 100 rubles.
The sharing of the income from the sale of the object: Vasya - 50%, Pete - 25%, Kohle - 25%. ”
etc.
If the author is not one, but there are several of them, and there is no such agreement, no meaningful sledka with the object is made - it will not work (any of the co-authors can challenge this deal).
Mistake number 3 "Wrong co-authorship"
- Unwanted Collaboration
The rights of all co-authors are completely equal.
One of such rights is the right to continue using the object to create other objects on its basis or with its use.
EXAMPLE # 1:
Vasya, Petya, Kolya did R & D for hashing tables (in the research report - all three authors stand), then Kohl dropped, and Vasya and Petya refined the R & D methodology, and patented it for themselves, and sold the patent to the microsoft software.
Three years later, Kohl surfaced, and demanded the inclusion of himself among the co-authors of the patent and his 33% of the profit. (if they did not have a collective copyright on R & D - see above)
EXAMPLE # 2:
Vasya, Petya, Kolya - they nakropali an article describing the methods of hashing the tables, then Kolya disappeared, and Vasya and Petya finalized the methodology, and based on it they made a program that they sold to microsoft.
Three years later, Kohl surfaced, demanding the inclusion of himself among the co-authors of the program and his 33% of the profit. (if they did not have a collective copyright on R & D - see above)
MORALITY:
Doing now think what will happen next.
In the first case, if a patent was applied in R & D, it was possible to distinguish the patent part (hashing) in R & D as the work of Vasya and Petit, and Kohl could give something else.
In the second, to split the article into two parts, as a collection, and the part of hashing, to unsubscribe Vasya and Pete (so that they are their authors), and Kohl to put the part about something else as the author.
- Unexpected collaboration
The rights of all co-authors are completely equal.
To use an object with collective authorship - you need to get the consent of all its authors.
The authors are all those who participated in the creation of the object.
EXAMPLE # 1:
Vasya came up with a method of hashing tables, climbed on HabraHabr, and put a post on it.
Petya read the post, and in the papers he proposed improvement No. 1.
Total: The author of the original methodology - Vasya, the authors of the improvement number 1 - Vasya + Peter.
EXAMPLE # 2:
Vasya came up with a method of hashing tables and wanted to put it into a program.
Vasya came on a start-up weekend, met Petya and Kohl there, carried them off with the idea, and they drank coffee for two days, discussed the methodology, and sculpted the code.
Total: The author of the original methodology is Vasya, the authors of the resulting methodology and program are Vasya + Petya + Kohl + (some girl with glasses, whose name no one asked).
MORALITY:
Doing now think what will happen next.
In the first case, the situation is saved by the footer of the post with the text " all improvements and enhancements to this technique are the property of Vasya . "
In the second case - a bit more complicated, since many actions are performed in a non-documentary oral form, but this is fixable.
It is possible one day before the start-up weekend on HabraHabr in the " ideas for start-ups " section to start a blog of the project's working group, and to use the blog for the work of the group, which will have the above footer.
- Improvements in implementation
This situation is the most frequent and most important case of the emergence of the " unexpected collaboration " from the previous paragraph.
Ideas and developments in the process of bringing to the market, and even more so the subsequent operation - develop, adapt and optimize, and as a result can change quite dramatically.
The method of hashing tables for a week can be transformed into improvement No. 1, and it, in another month, into improvement No. 2, which in its turn, after a month of practical implementation, can be used to optimize memory load.
The phrase “all adaptations, improvements and improvements of the present methodology are the property of Vasya” - covers only table hashing, and will no longer apply to the way of optimizing memory load.
There are three possible ways to work with such situations.
A) The original text should be attributed to the phrase "the operator / adapter (Petya) is obliged to immediately notify Vasya about all changes, adaptations, improvements and improvements in the methodology, and to take the actions necessary to assign Vasya the rights to these changes, improvements and improvements "
B) Establish joint ownership of the phrases "... must notify about changes .... ", And then by choice:
- " everything is transferred to Vasya, but Vasya gives Petya the right to use the improvements ";
- " everything is transferred to Petya, but Petya gives Vasya the right to use the improvements ";
- "the parties establish the procedure for the use of improvements as a result of negotiations . "
C) All improvements / changes / improvements are transferred to Petya and he, for example, pays Vasya% of the received profit.
If these options (of course, not all at once, but some one of them) are not prescribed, then it will be very difficult to eliminate the wrong collaboration as a result of such an error, but it can greatly complicate the sale of the decision.
Mistake number 4 "service development"
Copyrights to anyone (except plagiarists and graphomaniac) are not needed. (see Error # 1)
To extract profit from an object, only rights to use this object are relevant.
The right to use the object can be transferred by the author to another person under the contract.
Such a contract can be targeted, to create a specific object (pile the interface of the Word program, write a test suite for the Excel program, etc.), or a framework one to create many such objects on an ongoing basis (with constant work in state, or on an external contract).
Such a development is called " service ", and all rights to it (of course, except copyright) belong to the customer.
For this purpose, in the target contract - specific parameters and requirements for the object are specified (what exactly and how exactly should be created).
And in the framework - the mechanism of issuing tasks for the development by the customer / employer and the reception created (the programmer from the team leader comes to the post office with the TK program, schedule and test suite, the programmer sculpts the code, runs the tests, writes the service, starts the code and sends to the team leader, etc.).
If you make a mistake and do not create a service development mode for a technical solution (the author, according to his staff list and job description, is not obliged to create this solution, and the employer / customer did not formalize him to create this particular solution in the form of a specific order), then that the author has created this decision by itself, of his own will, respectively, it belongs to him.
EXAMPLE:
Vasya and Peter came up with a method of hashing tables, piled a C ++ program and began selling it to Kohl.
Kohl inserted it into his utility package, and began to market it.
Things went well, and the prospect of selling a package (in the form of a sale of a Kolya startup) to microsoft loomed.
Microsoft needs one owner for the transaction, with all the rights.
The snot hanging on the sides in the form of incomprehensible Vasya and singing to him are not needed.
In addition, both Vasya and Petya themselves in this situation are most likely to roll out the sponges, and they will want more than they wanted from Kolya.
Therefore, Kolya hired Vasya and Petya to his staff, wrote in the staffing table and job description that their function - to sculpt the table hashing program in Java, and a memo from 1 date (duplicated to the notary just in case) instructed them to scroll the table hashing program in Java .
After sculpturing, he accepted the program on written help, paid them a salary, and a premium.
And then - severance pay. (why do they need them if the program is already his)
Mistake number 5 "Authorship and $"
You can complete the topic with the most innocuous of the author's mistakes, - the mistake of not using the mechanisms of authorship to solve related problems.
EXAMPLE # 1:
Vasya wants to legally get a profit from his own company.
It is not profitable to get ego as a salary or as dividends due to tax rates.
Vasya sculpts a utility model (copies someone else’s from the last bulletin
Rospatent, puts his full name and submits as his own), after which he licenses it dearly to his native enterprise.
And receives from him legal and legal royalties.
EXAMPLE # 2:
Same as above, only Vasya is registered as an employee, a patent for a utility model is issued for a company (the author is still he, copyright is not alienable (if you forget it, read the article from the beginning)), and he receives $ as an author reward for creating a model.
===============================================
Previously:
- " Individualization errors "
- " Disclosure Errors "
- " Errors offshore "
Further:
- " IP Security Error "
- " Errors of budget money "
- " Errors of double technologies "
- " Toxic Investment Mistakes "
- " License Errors "
- " Positioning errors "
APDATE
"one. Vasya performed work tasks. During the work, he invented an algorithm that is extremely promising. Vasya took a day off, finalized the algorithm (described the utility model and so on, actually designed his designs in a form suitable for patenting) and issued a patent for it. I returned to work and offered my company to buy this patent from him. ”
Parse in order.
He won't be able to get a patent for time off, a patent for an IT invention is at least a year, but not the point.
The key is - “Vasya performed work tasks. In the course of work, he invented an algorithm . ”
If the algorithm is page caching, and according to the staffing table and job description, he is hired to develop page caching algorithms, and last month he was assigned to develop a page caching algorithm by page service, then this is pure service development. (he was hired for that, and that’s what the money pays for)
If he came up with an algorithm for converting color during color correction, then this algorithm is completely his, and he can dispose of it at his discretion.
Again, in such cases, you just need to take those documents on which Vasya works in the company and read what is written there.
And if it says something like “The Contractor is obliged to immediately notify the Customer about the protectable objects of intellectual property created during the implementation of this contract, as well as inform the Customer ...” , then there are no questions - no.
It all depends on the adequacy of its employers / customers.
If they are not idiots, then Vasya is hired by a set of documents, where there is a special agreement on service development, a non-disclosure agreement, an agreement on non-competition, an agreement on non-proliferation of technological experience.
We make such a package for companies for $ 500 (and they only need to arrange service offices on time), and any foreign company already has it.
If Vasya was hired by the left contract, where some kind of garbage is written, which has nothing to do with his real work, and Vasya doesn’t have any job description, staffing list, much less help handicrafts (or they don’t have a word about caching ), then everything that he will do - him (and if he is not a fool, - he can take care of the results of his work colleagues (which is not so rare)).
2. Vasya with his new algorithm (developed as part of his official duties) arrived at the conference. During the conference, Peter publicly proposed several improvements. Vasya inserted them into the algorithm. Six months later, Petya demanded payments from Vasya for using his improvements.
All that is publicly announced loses the possibility of patent protection. (see “Disclosure Errors” ).
Therefore, reporting on the new algorithm Vasya to him - he had patent pending in his pocket.
After the public announcement of improvements, neither Vasya nor Petya can patent them.
(although Vasya, taking into account what he heard, may slightly modify the patent application, for example, by developing and detailing the heard thoughts)
Petr will not be able to demand payments from Vasi’s company for using his improvements six months later, since no company in his right mind and sober memory (we exclude companies of the Russian Federation for obvious reasons) will enter into their economic development an incomprehensible development.
You can request payments either for patent infringement (which is not the case here), or for infringement of copyright.
Copyright is the right to works of science, literature, art, etc.
In this case, it is a work of science.
The only thing that Petya can then do is demand recognition of himself as the co-author of improvements, respectively - mentioning himself as a co-author in all subsequent publications about these improvements (he will automatically increase the citation index).
Copyright and use rights are different things (see Error “Confusion between copyright and non-copyright” ).
, , ( — ), «» ( — , patent pending) — .
3. ( ) . ( ) , . . .
— , — ( ), .
— .
- — , .
, .
-- patent pending- , .
( , , - — ( — ))
patent pending , — , , — .
4. , , , , , ?
, ( , ).
(/ + + + ), — , (+, — ).
— .
— , .
( — , — )
— , , - ( — ).
( , ), , (/ + + + ) — - $1.
, , ( ), , , .
5. . . . . 1$?
, / $1, … .
, — … .
, , , (. ).
, , — .
"… , ..." + "… ..." ..
, / $1, — .
— , .
« — »
6. , , , . , , 1234 , . : , . , , : . , : « . , , , . , , .»
( « IP» ), .
, , .
, — , , — .
( — , , ( ))
— .
— : www.business-magazine.ru/mech_new/experience/pub113864/page/all
( , ( ) )
, , , — , .
— , , — , , , , .. etc.
— , .
( - -, , , .., — , , — , — , 5 — )
— , — , , , 100% .
— 2 .
№ :
, — , (. ).
№ :
, — .
:
1370.
...
5. , , , , , . , . :
— () ,
— , , .
— .
— « » .
( — , , , - , , — , )
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/143941/
All Articles