3 ms·

I'm an IP lawyer, but I'm not YOUR lawyer and so don't take this as legal advice about your particular situation; if you do consult a lawyer, this might give yo

by dctoedt 17y ago

I'm an IP lawyer, but I'm not YOUR lawyer and so don't take this as legal advice about your particular situation; if you do consult a lawyer, this might give you some background info for use as a head start in your discussion. 1. U.S. patent law says patents belong to the inventor(s), absent either (i) an agreement to assign the patent rights, or (ii) an implied-in-law duty to assign, such as arises when an employee is "hired to invent" or "set to experimenting." If your university has some sort of written policy about undergraduate- or graduate work belonging to X, you might well be held to have agreed to it by applying and/or enrolling, either in the school or in your particular course. (pg has it exactly right on this point.) 2. U.S. copyright law says that the copyright in original works of authorship (which might or might not include elements of your project) are owned by the author(s) UNLESS (i) there's an agreement to assign the copyright, or (ii) the author's authoring activities took place within the scope of his employment, or (iii) the work fits into one of a comparatively few specific categories -- translations, contributions to collective works, and some others -- AND the parties agreed in writing that the work would be a work made for hire. 3. U.S. trade-secret law might be a little trickier, because it varies state by state. The pretty-much-universal rule, though, is that at least some degree of secrecy is a sine qua non of trade-secret rights.

tsestrich 17y ago
That's helpful information. I'll have to dig up what I signed when I agreed to go to school here and find out what it said about research.
tsuraan 17y ago
Points 1 and 2 are sort of fascinating to me. As far as I'm aware, patents and copyrights are defined in the constitution as monopolies granted to "Authors and Inventors". Do you know how it is that the laws, which are supposed to build on the constitution, have extended ownership of copyrights and patents to corporate entities? It seems to be directly opposed to what the constitution allows.
- tptacek 17y ago
  The constitution grants them to inventors, who can assign them to others via contract. How is that unconstitutional?
  - aplusbi 17y ago
    In addition to this, don't forget that corporations are legal persons. Edit: In the US and England at least.
    - tsuraan 17y ago
      Yeah, corporations are legal people, but can they invent or create? Maybe it is a legal truth that they can, but I'm guessing you could put a corporate charter in a room with pencils, paint brushes, raw material, etc for a million years and never get a creative work out of it. Can an entity unable to be creative actually have copyright or patents, under the wording of the US Constitution? I really am curious how we got to this state.
      - dctoedt 17y ago
        Continuing my numbering of before: 4. 'Ownership' is to a certain extent a legal fiction - it's simply a label we use to indicate when the government will use force, if necessary, to allow the 'owner' to do X and/or to prevent others from doing it. 5. In that sense, a patent or copyright conveys 'ownership' only in that the government will (upon a proper showing) enforce specified penalties against non-owners who do things they're not 'supposed' to do. 6. Congress long ago stated, in the relevant Acts of Congress, that patent- and copyright 'ownership' can be transferred to others, including corporations and other entities. 7. So basically, the brute fact is that 'ownership' of a patent or copyright can be transferred because: (i) Congress said so, and (ii) the guys with the black robes and gavels follow what Congress said, and (iii) the guys with the guns and badges go along, and (iv) ultimately, the guys with the BDUs and M-16s and tanks go along too. 8. The above doesn't automatically prove that Congress made the right call on this point -- but I don't think there's been much of a controversy about it in the past 200-plus years.

by dctoedt 17y ago

tsestrich 17y ago

That's helpful information. I'll have to dig up what I signed when I agreed to go to school here and find out what it said about research.

tsuraan 17y ago

Points 1 and 2 are sort of fascinating to me. As far as I'm aware, patents and copyrights are defined in the constitution as monopolies granted to "Authors and Inventors". Do you know how it is that the laws, which are supposed to build on the constitution, have extended ownership of copyrights and patents to corporate entities? It seems to be directly opposed to what the constitution allows.

tptacek 17y ago
The constitution grants them to inventors, who can assign them to others via contract. How is that unconstitutional?
- aplusbi 17y ago
  In addition to this, don't forget that corporations are legal persons. Edit: In the US and England at least.
  - tsuraan 17y ago
    Yeah, corporations are legal people, but can they invent or create? Maybe it is a legal truth that they can, but I'm guessing you could put a corporate charter in a room with pencils, paint brushes, raw material, etc for a million years and never get a creative work out of it. Can an entity unable to be creative actually have copyright or patents, under the wording of the US Constitution? I really am curious how we got to this state.
    - dctoedt 17y ago
      Continuing my numbering of before: 4. 'Ownership' is to a certain extent a legal fiction - it's simply a label we use to indicate when the government will use force, if necessary, to allow the 'owner' to do X and/or to prevent others from doing it. 5. In that sense, a patent or copyright conveys 'ownership' only in that the government will (upon a proper showing) enforce specified penalties against non-owners who do things they're not 'supposed' to do. 6. Congress long ago stated, in the relevant Acts of Congress, that patent- and copyright 'ownership' can be transferred to others, including corporations and other entities. 7. So basically, the brute fact is that 'ownership' of a patent or copyright can be transferred because: (i) Congress said so, and (ii) the guys with the black robes and gavels follow what Congress said, and (iii) the guys with the guns and badges go along, and (iv) ultimately, the guys with the BDUs and M-16s and tanks go along too. 8. The above doesn't automatically prove that Congress made the right call on this point -- but I don't think there's been much of a controversy about it in the past 200-plus years.