4 ms·

If I am understanding this correctly; you could file 3 "high value" patents, which would result in 12 points awarded, which you could convert to a...$1,200 payo

If I am understanding this correctly; you could file 3 "high value" patents, which would result in 12 points awarded, which you could convert to a...$1,200 payout? I guess it is better than nothing, but $1,200 is like is like gold sticker level for people in those tiers (at least I hope so).

hashtag-til 3y ago
$1,200 is really lower than any company that want to incentive patents would pay.
readyplayernull 3y ago
Bug bounty programs are the next iteration for these companies to avoid hard and expensive research.
- richbell 3y ago
  IBM conveniently does not seem to offer bug bounties. Granted, it's possible that they have a private program. https://hackerone.com/ibm https://hackerone.com/ibm
jjoonathan 3y ago
Maybe the program is dominated by a few people who got really, uhh, efficient at cranking out patents and the new prices reflect the hourly rate of keeping the hustle going rather than attracting new prospective inventors with fresh ideas.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- blacksmith_tb 3y ago
  Seems like the fix for that problem is a cap for annual payouts instead of torpedoing the whole program? Though I would think for a lot of people who might be able to contribute to only one or two per year (and still do their dayjob) the $1200 would be pretty underwhelming.
- _ea1k 3y ago
  I'd guess that's true, and also that the people on the most patents are just "co-inventors". It likely makes the program highly profitable for a few, who may not even be the ones doing most of the followup work with the lawyers who actually get the patent filed.
pierrekin 3y ago
At HPE, it's $3000.00 per patent, for each author.
- wnissen 3y ago
  Yeah, I was going to say, I think the number at IBM was $1800 per patent, per author back in 2000, which would be ~$3300 today. It wasn't "buy a boat" type of money but it was more than "nice meal", for sure.
- flypaca 3y ago
  Correct, though if there are more than 3 authors it is 9000/(No. of authors).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
duxup 3y ago
I worked at a company where a yearly bonus structure was conceived of by a team in HR who were IMO bad with numbers. Many emails went out about how it worked and so on. One year we got $300 (or less...) bonuses. It was just how the math of this complicated system worked out. A lot of feedback was given about that program and it wasn't positive. They came back to a few of us asking us to elaborate. I told them "I once got a $300 bonus working at Little Caesars (American pizza chain) for selling the most crazy bread in a month." They finally got the hint and canceled the entire thing, it was better not to have it at all IMO, more demoralizing having it around. $300 is better than nothing, except when it sends the wrong message.
- cplusplusfellow 3y ago
  Companies really, really want their employees to perform specific behaviors that they desire, except they don't want to compensate them extra. In truth, a base pay + bonus structure that is commensurate with the outcomes the company desires is the best solution. Leaders shouldn't trust folks who go into HR to come up with these.
  - duxup 3y ago
    Yup, and in this case a lot of the numbers that went into the math were department wide macro numbers. I could do amazing at my job, the numbers wouldn't change, I could do nothing, the numbers wouldn't change... and it was a mystery/ a core to get a feel for how the math would work out. That opaqueness was an issue too.
    - hobs 3y ago
      Better to just do a low amount of profit sharing - if we all win you win, if we all lose you get nothing; its way less stupid than saying "well you are being dinged for our failure on X thing" when they had no ability to impact it and often times that's not even tied to profitability.
      - duxup 3y ago
wredue 3y ago
When I worked at IBM, the pay was not great, and managers were extremely combative over raises and recognition. IBM was actually a terrible job. Upper management consistently shits on the workers for “not being agile enough”, but the walls they put up for you to change anything are impossible to climb. It was constant finger pointing and generally bad morale. Do not recommend.
- throwaway19423 3y ago
  I also worked at IBM (Research) early in my career. Most folks I know left but some good folks went into manager/leader positions. I always wonder .. do manager/leaders get paid better at IBM (Research)? Cause the people are really good.
- bane 3y ago
  The subreddit /r/IBM is eyeopening about what a terrible place to work IBM is. Most of the posts seem to be by people trying to find ways to escape.
scrapcode 3y ago
Like you and another commenter point out, incentive amounts send a different message depending on the context. Out of curiosity I once did a small amount of "research" on different car sales payment plans and the commission for selling a car was much lower than I had imagined. In that industry I would imagine that the benefits of base salary level end after onboarding, and begin to have a negative correlation with their performance afterward.

hashtag-til 3y ago

$1,200 is really lower than any company that want to incentive patents would pay.

readyplayernull 3y ago

Bug bounty programs are the next iteration for these companies to avoid hard and expensive research.

richbell 3y ago
IBM conveniently does not seem to offer bug bounties. Granted, it's possible that they have a private program. https://hackerone.com/ibm https://hackerone.com/ibm

jjoonathan 3y ago

Maybe the program is dominated by a few people who got really, uhh, efficient at cranking out patents and the new prices reflect the hourly rate of keeping the hustle going rather than attracting new prospective inventors with fresh ideas.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
blacksmith_tb 3y ago
Seems like the fix for that problem is a cap for annual payouts instead of torpedoing the whole program? Though I would think for a lot of people who might be able to contribute to only one or two per year (and still do their dayjob) the $1200 would be pretty underwhelming.
_ea1k 3y ago
I'd guess that's true, and also that the people on the most patents are just "co-inventors". It likely makes the program highly profitable for a few, who may not even be the ones doing most of the followup work with the lawyers who actually get the patent filed.

pierrekin 3y ago

At HPE, it's $3000.00 per patent, for each author.

wnissen 3y ago
Yeah, I was going to say, I think the number at IBM was $1800 per patent, per author back in 2000, which would be ~$3300 today. It wasn't "buy a boat" type of money but it was more than "nice meal", for sure.
flypaca 3y ago
Correct, though if there are more than 3 authors it is 9000/(No. of authors).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

duxup 3y ago

I worked at a company where a yearly bonus structure was conceived of by a team in HR who were IMO bad with numbers. Many emails went out about how it worked and so on. One year we got $300 (or less...) bonuses. It was just how the math of this complicated system worked out. A lot of feedback was given about that program and it wasn't positive. They came back to a few of us asking us to elaborate. I told them "I once got a $300 bonus working at Little Caesars (American pizza chain) for selling the most crazy bread in a month." They finally got the hint and canceled the entire thing, it was better not to have it at all IMO, more demoralizing having it around. $300 is better than nothing, except when it sends the wrong message.

cplusplusfellow 3y ago
Companies really, really want their employees to perform specific behaviors that they desire, except they don't want to compensate them extra. In truth, a base pay + bonus structure that is commensurate with the outcomes the company desires is the best solution. Leaders shouldn't trust folks who go into HR to come up with these.
- duxup 3y ago
  Yup, and in this case a lot of the numbers that went into the math were department wide macro numbers. I could do amazing at my job, the numbers wouldn't change, I could do nothing, the numbers wouldn't change... and it was a mystery/ a core to get a feel for how the math would work out. That opaqueness was an issue too.
  - hobs 3y ago
    Better to just do a low amount of profit sharing - if we all win you win, if we all lose you get nothing; its way less stupid than saying "well you are being dinged for our failure on X thing" when they had no ability to impact it and often times that's not even tied to profitability.
    - duxup 3y ago

wredue 3y ago

When I worked at IBM, the pay was not great, and managers were extremely combative over raises and recognition. IBM was actually a terrible job. Upper management consistently shits on the workers for “not being agile enough”, but the walls they put up for you to change anything are impossible to climb. It was constant finger pointing and generally bad morale. Do not recommend.

throwaway19423 3y ago
I also worked at IBM (Research) early in my career. Most folks I know left but some good folks went into manager/leader positions. I always wonder .. do manager/leaders get paid better at IBM (Research)? Cause the people are really good.
bane 3y ago
The subreddit /r/IBM is eyeopening about what a terrible place to work IBM is. Most of the posts seem to be by people trying to find ways to escape.

scrapcode 3y ago

Like you and another commenter point out, incentive amounts send a different message depending on the context. Out of curiosity I once did a small amount of "research" on different car sales payment plans and the commission for selling a car was much lower than I had imagined. In that industry I would imagine that the benefits of base salary level end after onboarding, and begin to have a negative correlation with their performance afterward.