4 ms·

I just googled and came up with the same result. Does anyone know why taking a photo of a patent (with the patent number visible) would be a fireable offence?

I just googled and came up with the same result. Does anyone know why taking a photo of a patent (with the patent number visible) would be a fireable offence? I thought patents were public?

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
I can think of a way. First to note you can easily find all patents with Microsoft as applicant and Michael Kaplan as inventor, eg via Espacenet. So, it's possible the "frame" is the issue. Suppose a patent was issued without Kaplan listed as inventor, or with others listed who did not have a role. Then a frame saying "thanks to $people for their [sole] effort on this project" could become part of a lawsuit (not necessarily in USA) for the right to be named as inventor; in UK for example a significant contribution can require that an employee is reasonably compensated. That can be worth $USD millions (eg recent case 'Shanks v Unilever and others'). Based on this even just the wall the frame is on saying "significant contributions" or something might make a court case work that otherwise wouldn't. I very much doubt that's the reason, but it gives me pause that a missing detail might explain the whole thing. Kaplan wouldn't even need to be aware of it. It could also be something as simple as the company wanting an excuse to fire him, and "photos of any materials associated with patents is a firable offence" being in his contract.
jcranmer 6y ago
His blog post said "The second one was after I was granted a patent that I honestly believed never should have been issued." If he posted the photo of the patent in an article where he simultaneously made that remark, that combination would be extremely damning evidence in any patent trial and could lead to the invalidation of the patent. Although, on re-reading his statement, the firing wasn't the taking a picture of a patent, but including some ("infamous") art in another blog post.
- jjjjoe 6y ago
  The "infamous art" was a red screen of death from a beta copy of Windows Longhorn. Apparently the blog post was in the middle of the negative news cycle about Longhorn and his posting the RSOD didn't help. That blog article is available at https://web.archive.org/web/20170623173912/http://archives.miloush.net/michkap/archive/2005/05/07/415335.html https://web.archive.org/web/20170623173912/http://archives.m... He blogged about it ten years later at http://archives.miloush.net/michkap/archive/2015/09/04/8770668856267197190.html http://archives.miloush.net/michkap/archive/2015/09/04/87706...

I just googled and came up with the same result. Does anyone know why taking a photo of a patent (with the patent number visible) would be a fireable offence? I thought patents were public?

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

I can think of a way. First to note you can easily find all patents with Microsoft as applicant and Michael Kaplan as inventor, eg via Espacenet. So, it's possible the "frame" is the issue. Suppose a patent was issued without Kaplan listed as inventor, or with others listed who did not have a role. Then a frame saying "thanks to $people for their [sole] effort on this project" could become part of a lawsuit (not necessarily in USA) for the right to be named as inventor; in UK for example a significant contribution can require that an employee is reasonably compensated. That can be worth $USD millions (eg recent case 'Shanks v Unilever and others'). Based on this even just the wall the frame is on saying "significant contributions" or something might make a court case work that otherwise wouldn't. I very much doubt that's the reason, but it gives me pause that a missing detail might explain the whole thing. Kaplan wouldn't even need to be aware of it. It could also be something as simple as the company wanting an excuse to fire him, and "photos of any materials associated with patents is a firable offence" being in his contract.

jcranmer 6y ago

His blog post said "The second one was after I was granted a patent that I honestly believed never should have been issued." If he posted the photo of the patent in an article where he simultaneously made that remark, that combination would be extremely damning evidence in any patent trial and could lead to the invalidation of the patent. Although, on re-reading his statement, the firing wasn't the taking a picture of a patent, but including some ("infamous") art in another blog post.

jjjjoe 6y ago
The "infamous art" was a red screen of death from a beta copy of Windows Longhorn. Apparently the blog post was in the middle of the negative news cycle about Longhorn and his posting the RSOD didn't help. That blog article is available at https://web.archive.org/web/20170623173912/http://archives.miloush.net/michkap/archive/2005/05/07/415335.html https://web.archive.org/web/20170623173912/http://archives.m... He blogged about it ten years later at http://archives.miloush.net/michkap/archive/2015/09/04/8770668856267197190.html http://archives.miloush.net/michkap/archive/2015/09/04/87706...