Question about Intellectual Property and Ideas (in a job as well)?

[MissSilvy]

I'm not indignant that I can't steal from companies, which selling a product that they hired you to make would be (like selling a new motor design to a competitor when you, in fact, work on that company's motors) but I'm a little mad that if I was a motor engineer with an interest in building cars or robots and I came up with something I wanted to market, I couldn't. I was under the impression that when a company hires you, it is to do a specific function, like improving factory efficiency or something, and anything you come up with in that area belongs to them.

 

[LowlyPion]

I'm not indignant that I can't steal from companies, which selling a product that they hired you to make would be (like selling a new motor design to a competitor when you, in fact, work on that company's motors) but I'm a little mad that if I was a motor engineer with an interest in building cars or robots and I came up with something I wanted to market, I couldn't. I was under the impression that when a company hires you, it is to do a specific function, like improving factory efficiency or something, and anything you come up with in that area belongs to them.

When they hire you for your creativity that's a bit different than hiring you as say a receptionist. There of course you can certainly be expected to be able to answer your phone at home.

But creativity is different. It involves inspiration, innovative leaps, making something that maybe hasn't been thought of before, seeing things in a different way, ... etc. And if that's what they are paying you for, they have some expectation that they won't have to be disadvantaged if you come up with something new that may just be useful to them. I think you will find that if you come up with something that is not practical to them they will likely give you a waiver if you bother to ask.

 

[Proton Soup]

i think the answer is pretty clear. if there is no incentive to innovate, then don't provide any innovations. do your job and go home.

 

[russ_watters]

It's pretty well-known that engineering companies bemoan the quality and skills of fresh graduates, saying that they have no idea how things work and can't design, etc. but it is also funny that they expect new graduates who can preform like experienced professionals for the same, low starting salary.

I am not a person who takes a job and then does the minimum amount or work for a paycheck. I work and I work very well, so it's highly distasteful that I have no chance to better my career independently of the company. For a sum of $50,000 a year they own everything I make and every thought I have? Please, this is lunacy.

I'm not clear from that whether you are out of school or not, but when you get out of school, you have nothing whatsoever with which to prove how much you are worth, so you get the standard rate. But people who are good are generally recognized relatively quickly and rewarded for it. There is nothing wrong, ironic, etc. about how that works. It's a reality that makes a lot of sense.

 

[D H]

This is not true. Nobody would sign such a contract !

For almost every employer in the US (be it a corporation, non-profit, university, or a branch of the government), candidate employees who refuse to sign such a contract cease to be candidate employees. Everyone signs such a contract.

It's true of engineers too - and no, it's not cooking ideas, just ideas related to the job. It isn't a matter of company policy, it's the law.

You can google it: http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/ippol.htm

That's not the law -- it is indeed a matter of company policy. Patent law is pretty clear that a patent is created by individuals, not corporations. The specific example cited in your post is the University of Texas' Intellectual Property Policy, which must be signed, dated, and witnessed. In other words, it is a contract. Once properly signed it becomes legally binding. A contract would not be needed if the law already said that IP belongs to the employer.

 

[LowlyPion]

i think the answer is pretty clear. if there is no incentive to innovate, then don't provide any innovations. do your job and go home.

You can take that approach. But then again you are dead ending yourself. If your only motive is in getting compensated and you get nothing from solving problems (you know like job security, the opportunity to solve more problems) then that's your choice. It also makes you less valuable to your current employer and less attractive to a future employer. Getting laid off without a patent to your name for instance, is maybe not as good as remaining employed and being valued and getting raises and maybe even turning down opportunities for instance.

On the other hand this is based on thinking you enjoy the work. If you don't enjoy technical or creative contribution except for the money, then maybe think about doing something you do enjoy?

 

[Proton Soup]

You can take that approach. But then again you are dead ending yourself. If your only motive is in getting compensated and you get nothing from solving problems (you know like job security, the opportunity to solve more problems) then that's your choice. It also makes you less valuable to your current employer and less attractive to a future employer. Getting laid off without a patent to your name for instance, is maybe not as good as remaining employed and being valued and getting raises and maybe even turning down opportunities for instance.

On the other hand this is based on thinking you enjoy the work. If you don't enjoy technical or creative contribution except for the money, then maybe think about doing something you do enjoy?

oh, i dunno. i suspect the companies that reward creativity survive hard times better than the ones that don't. and then you end up with creativity used in rather unproductive means, like digging in like a tick and keeping all the knowledge to yourself, making yourself "invaluable" because you're the only one that knows how certain legacy products work. you can dedicate yourself to life in a company like that, but good luck ever finding joy in life and work.

 

[rootX]

I'm not clear from that whether you are out of school or not, but when you get out of school, you have nothing whatsoever with which to prove how much you are worth, so you get the standard rate. But people who are good are generally recognized relatively quickly and rewarded for it. There is nothing wrong, ironic, etc. about how that works. It's a reality that makes a lot of sense.

I also agree with this.

My employer works full time (with about 30 people under him) and owns two-three small* companies. And, he is is pretty young I guess. (have only about 4-6 years working experience).

He also once told me that when young, he always wondered why professionals make 10 times him etc...

 

[MissSilvy]

I'd never except to make exorbitant amounts as an untried graduate. I know that I will start out with a certain salary and then have to prove I'm worth getting a raise. The problem with trying to ingratiate yourself with companies is that people have told me it is difficult to go off on your own. I don't want to work for some company for the rest of my working life, though I would obviously have to start off that way. I want to be an engineer because I enjoy solving problems and designing things. I do not, however, want to be an engineer so I can play in the convoluted inner-workings of companies and office bureaucracy. I have no objection to work and being a valuable employee, but before I go through more years of school and massive investments of time and energy, I need to know that competence and creativity is well-rewarded in the field.

You are correct in the assumption that I am not finished with my schooling yet and I do still have a lot to learn about how the working world functions but that is why I ask questions and seek out advice. I don't know everything and I don't claim to but before I get into something as important as a career, I need to make sure that I won't hate it 20 years down the line. Sure, I have 'passion' but I've seen a lot of people go in with raw passion and come out unsatisfied and disgruntled.

I appreciate everyone that's commented on this thread, since now I have a better idea of what's involved in the field and a lot more material to ask around about :)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm not indignant that I can't steal from companies, which selling a product that they hired you to make would be (like selling a new motor design to a competitor when you, in fact, work on that company's motors) but I'm a little mad that if I was a motor engineer with an interest in building cars or robots and I came up with something I wanted to market, I couldn't. I was under the impression that when a company hires you, it is to do a specific function, like improving factory efficiency or something, and anything you come up with in that area belongs to them.

you always OWN your own intellectual property. companies only own RIGHTS to the intellectual property. so you get credit for your work and are always capable of noting what patents are of your design in resumes and portfolios.
also you may want to consider how many original patents you believe you are capable of producing on your own, whether or not you can sell them or produce them commercially on your own, and whether or not this will bring you 50,000 a year plus benefits plus raises each year ect.
if you think you can then there is no point getting a job in a corporation. if you think you can't but that you are worth more then ask for a raise or go looking for a new job with your portfolio showing how valuable you have been.

 

[drankin]

Just to note, it may not even be a "corporation". When I got my first patent it was with a private company. All I got is my name on it. But my company made, literally, millions with the "invention". And that's the way it should be. If I hadn't worked for them, I wouldn't have even thought of the idea. And I pride myself on being a considerable asset to any company I work with.