5 ms·
IANAL, but 35 U.S. Code § 115 requires that "each individual who is the inventor or a joint inventor of a claimed invention in an application for patent shall e
by jackgavigan 8y ago
IANAL, but 35 U.S. Code § 115 requires that "each individual who is the inventor or a joint inventor of a claimed invention in an application for patent shall execute an oath or declaration" that they believe "himself or herself to be the original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed invention in the application," and acknowledging "that any willful false statement made in such declaration or statement is punishable under section 1001 of title 18 by fine or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both."
So... How is this not literally a crime?
- hartator 8y agoThis. Google should also probably take disciplinary actions.
- 2_listerine_pls 8y agoYou are kidding right? They even encourage it by making you sign a visitor agreement so that you have no right to the IP you discuss.
- jacques_chester 8y agoInvention is not the same as assignment. You can sign away assignment, but inventorship remains with the inventor(s).
- teknopaul 8y agoWould set a good example now this has come to light and especially since they tried to include the author as inventor. Proves they knew they were not the inventors.
- 2_listerine_pls 8y agoI hope someone makes an example out of them.
- yread 8y agoIt is. And since recently there is even case law and supreme court decision for this: https://www.patentdocs.org/2018/10/supreme-court-denies-certiorari-in-regeneron-pharmaceuticals-v-merus-.html https://www.patentdocs.org/2018/10/supreme-court-denies-cert...
- gpm 8y agoDenying cert is the supreme court deciding not to hear the case, not a supreme court decision on the content of the case. That case appears to be civil, not criminal?
- travmatt 8y agoAIUI, the Supreme Court only takes cases that require their ruling to clarify interpretations of existing law or a lower correct incorrectly interpreted a law. Denying cert means their is no clarification to be made to existing law, so that in itself is an answer.
- deogeo 8y agoEven without that specific law, it should fall under fraud.