Error technology transfer, No. 4 / the "Errors of authorship" + UPDATE
assisting in the withdrawal of developments and businesses to the foreign markets, have to constantly watch the same mistakes, and as a consequence — the failures and the losses.
Loss especially insulting, given that these errors repeatedly described and analyzed in scores of open and publicly available sources.
Not in the least claim to originality and exclusiveness, try to collect in this series of posts a dozen of the most common, obvious and relatively easy to necessary errors, elimination of which greatly increases the chances of success.
For convenience, descriptions of errors will understand on increase them complexity.
========================================
"Error of authorship"
NOTE: Everything written below applies to any of the intangible objects that exist as source in the IT industry and outside it, but which it can get (from a scientific article took the algorithm from a magazine — I took a picture for the interface of radio programs, have borrowed a motive for the voice on-screen buttons, etc.).
Mistake # 1 "the Confusion between copyright and not the copyright"
This error is not just common, but universal.
The author of an intangible object (algorithm/program/picture/music, etc.) recognized entity (person, citizen, person without citizenship, etc.), actions for which this object was created.
Before the object is created (born), about its existence no one except the author may not know, but after the act of creation (birth), the object begins to live his life, and the author's own.
Accordingly, they both have their own, and entirely different rights.
From the author — see "more", or as they are called "moral" right.
They consist of rights:
1. To call yourself the author of this object; ("I, Bob — authored this algorithm/program/picture");
2. Include your name as the author name of the facility; ("Algorithm/program/picture no.5. Author — Bob");
and (with significant restrictions)
3. Give the object a "name" (the name). ("Bob the hash Algorithm tables")
This is "more" right!
The meaning of these rights that we can prove his (and its) authorship, and require (with some limitations) specify the name of the author as the name of the Creator of the object.
These rights are protected in perpetuity, they are inalienable (cannot be taken) and non-transferable (cannot be transferred), and the waiver of these rights is null and void (of no effect).
This list of "copyright" the rights — exhausted.
All other rights not copyrights.
And the most important of them is the right to use the object.
(sometimes incorrectly referred to as "property")
The right to use the facility at the request of the author may be transferred to any other person under the contract.
The transfer may occur before the appearance of the object on light (the publishing contract to write the story, ordering the artist's paintings, service development), at the time of this occurrence, or after creation.
The composition of the transferred rights, and conditions of transfer are determined by the parties and fixed in the contract, adjusted for the requirement of the laws of different jurisdictions.
(PS. If the subject is the author, not to have legal capacity (depicting elephants, singing dogs, mentally ill, etc.) that all rights to use objects (but not more!) — originally owned by the guardian author)
Error number 2 "Collaboration"
In all that relates to "copyright" relationship, the first stage featured two sides — "author" and "second party" (the publisher, the customer, employer, etc.).
But "author" — does not have to be "man".
He can be a team (Vasya+Petya+nick).
All members of the team jointly creates the object are co-authors.
The rights of all coauthors are fully equal.
Accordingly, if they then begin to each other to argue, to divide these rights and to determine the share and contribution of each — can only court, and that is very subjective (where the court finds out that it was actually).
EXAMPLE:
"the Author's contract No. 6585 from 12 January 2013
Authors: Vasya, Petya, Kolya
Plenipotentiary representative of the object sale: Bob
The minimum sell price: 100 RUB.
The division of income from the sale of the object: the Bob — 50%, Pete — 25% Cola — 25%."
etc.
If the author is not one, but several, and no such agreement, no meaningful deal with the object to commit — will not work (any of the sponsors can deal this challenge).
Mistake number 3 "Improper collaboration"
— Unwanted collaboration
The rights of all coauthors are fully equal.
One of these rights is the right to continued use of the object to create on its basis or its use of other objects.
EXAMPLE 1:
Vasya, Petya, Kolya to his high school did R & d on hashing tables (in the research reports — are all three authors), then Kohl's has disappeared, and Bob and Pete have perfected the technique of Nira, and it was patented, and patent — sold to Microsoft.
Three years later, nick emerged and demanded the inclusion of himself among the co-authors of the patent and their 33% profit. (if at them on NIR were not collective copyright — see above)
EXAMPLE No. 2:
Vasya, Petya, Kolya — nakropal an article outlining the technique of hash tables, then nick disappeared, and Alex and Bob modified the methodology, and based on it pile program, which was sold to Microsoft.
Three years later, nick emerged, demanded the inclusion of himself among the sponsors of the programs and their 33% profit. (if at them on NIR were not collective copyright — see above)
MORALITY:
Doing now think, what will happen then.
In the first case, if Neera was pecking a patent, you can patent part of it (hashing) to allocate to Neera as the work of Alex and Bob, and the stake — to give up something else.
In the second, is to split the article into two parts, as a collection, and part of hash — to unsubscribe, Vasya and Petya (to the authors they are), and Kohl to put the author of the part about something else.
— An unexpected collaboration
The rights of all coauthors are fully equal.
To use an object with collective authorship — it is necessary to obtain the consent of all its authors.
The authors are all those who took part in the creation of the object.
EXAMPLE 1:
Bob came up with the technique of hash tables, climbed on Habrahabr, and nakropal post.
Peter read the post and comments proposed improvement No. 1.
Total: the Author of the initial technique — Vasya, authors of improvement No. 1 — Vasya+Petya.
EXAMPLE No. 2:
Bob came up with the technique of hash tables and wanted to translate it into a program.
Bob came to startup weekend, met Petya and Kolya, was fascinated by their idea, and two days, they drank coffee, discussed the methodology and sculpted code.
Total: the Author of the initial technique — Vasya, authors of the resulting techniques and programs — Vasya+Petya+Kohl's+(some girl with glasses whose name no one asked).
MORALITY:
Doing now think, what will happen then.
In the first case the situation is saved by the footer of the post with the text "all the improvements and enhancements of this methodology are the property of Vasi".
In the second case is slightly more complicated, because many actions take place in book-entry oral form, but it is fixable.
One day before startup weekend on Habrahabr under "ideas for startups" to start a blog of the project team and working groups to use this blog on which to stand above the footer.
— Improvements in the implementation
This situation is most frequent and most important case of occurrence of "unexpected co-authorship" above.
Ideas and developments in the process of bringing to market, and especially the subsequent operation — develop, adapt and optimize, and the result may vary very much.
The technique of hash tables for the week can be transformed into improvement of No. 1, and it is a month — to improvement of No. 2, which oered one month of practical implementation — in a way to optimize memory load.
There are three options for dealing with such situations.
A) To the original text to attribute the phrase "operator/adaptator (Peter) obliged to immediately notify the VA of all changes, adaptations, improvements and enhancements to methodologies and to take actions necessary for fixing the VA the rights to these changes, enhancements and improvements"
B) to Establish joint ownership of the phrases "... is obliged to notify about the changes... .", and then:
— "everything is passed to Bob, but Bob — provides Pete the right to use improvements";
— "all given to Peter, but Peter gives Bob the right to use improvements";
— "parties will govern the use of the improvements as a result of negotiations".
C) All the improvements/changes/improvements — are passed to Pete and he for example — pays the VA % of earned profit.
If these options (of course not all at once, and what one of them) not to prescribe, resulting from such errors incorrect co-authorship to eliminate then it will be very difficult, and it may greatly complicate the sale of solutions.
Mistake # 4 "Office development"
Copyright anyone (except copycats and scribblers) are not needed. (see Mistake # 1)
To extract from the object of profit only the right of use of this object.
The right to use the object can be transferred by the author to another person under the contract.
Such a contract may be targeted on creating a specific object (to pile the interface of the "ward", to write a test Suite for the program "Excel", etc.), or framework, for the creation of many such objects on a regular basis (at constant work in the state, or on an external contract).
Such development is called "service" and all rights to it (of course other than copyright) is owned by the client.
For this purpose in the trust agreement spells out specific parameters and requirements for the object (what exactly and how exactly it should be created).
And framework — prescribes the mechanism for issuance by client/employer for job development and reception are created (a programmer from the team leader, on receiving the memo with the statement of work for the program schedule and set of tests, the programmer creates the code, runs tests, writes the system area, tacit code and sends to the supervisor, etc.).
If you make a mistake and not to create technical solutions regime service development (author in its staffing and job descriptions — not obliged to create this decision, and the employer/customer doesn't have issued the creation of this specific solutions in the form of specific instructions), then it will turn out that the author of this decision has created itself, at its own request, respectively, it is he belongs.
EXAMPLE:
Bob and Peter came up with the technique of hash tables, rigged up on a C++ program and began to sell its stake.
Nick put it in your utilities package, and began to advance on the market.
Things went well, and the looming prospect of the sale of the package (in the form of sales Colin startup) to Microsoft.
Microsoft need to deal one owner with all the rights.
Hanging on the sides of the nozzle in the form of incomprehensible Vasya and sing it — is not necessary.
Besides yourself and Bob with Peter in this situation is likely to roll out of the sponge, and wants more than they wanted from Koli.
So nick hired Vasya and Petya to his staff, in staffing and job descriptions have written that their function — to sculpt the Java aaplet of hash tables, and the service note number 1 (duplicated in case the notary) instructed them to sculpt on the Java aaplet of hash tables.
After the sculpture — took a program written memo, paid them a salary and bonus.
And then severance. (why would he need them if the program is left up to him)
Mistake # 5 "Authorship $"
To complete the theme can be the most harmless of the author's error — mistake of non-use of the mechanisms of authorship for solving related problems.
EXAMPLE 1:
Bob wants to legally profit from his own company.
To the ego as a salary or as dividends due to the tax rates unprofitable.
Bob sculpts a utility model (someone else's copy of the latest newsletter
Rospatent, puts their name and serves as his), and then licenses its high cost of your plant.
To receive legitimate and legal payment of royalties.
EXAMPLE No. 2:
Same as above, only John is registered as an employee, the patent for utility model is issued by the company (the author is still it, the copyright is not transferable (if you forgot — read the article from the beginning)), and he gets as remuneration for the creation of a model.
===============================================
Earlier:
— "Error individualization"
— "Error disclosure"
— "Error offshore"
Next:
— "Error IP protection"
— "Error budget money"
— "Errors of double technologies"
— "Errors toxic" investments"
— "Error license"
— "positioning Errors"
UPDATE
"1. Bob was performing work tasks. In the course of work he invented the algorithm, which is extremely promising. Bob took the day off, the modified algorithm (described a useful model of ITP, in General, have formalized their development in suitable for patenting) and issued a patent. Went back to work and offered his company he has the patent to buy."
Parse order.
The patent it for a day off to — can't patent IT invention this year at least, but not the essence.
Key — "John performed the work tasks. In the course of work he invented algorithm".
If the algorithm — caching of pages, and the staffing and job descriptions he employed for the development of algorithms for caching pages, and last month he requested a memo to develop an algorithm for caching of pages, this is a pure office development. (it is hired for this, and that is what is being paid for)
If he came up with the algorithm to convert a color when color correction, the algorithm is entirely his and he can dispose of them at its discretion.
Again, in such cases — you just have to take those documents on which Bob work for the company, and read what is written there.
And if it says something like "the Contractor shall immediately notify customer of created during the implementation of this contract is copyrightable intellectual property, and to inform the Customer ...." , and no questions — no.
It all depends on the adequacy of his employers/customers.
If they are not idiots, Bob hired a set of documents where there is a special agreement on service development, confidentiality agreement, noncompete agreement, non-proliferation of technological experience.
We for companies doing this package for $500 (and it is only in time and correctly issue the system area), and any foreign company and so he is.
If Bob is hired on contract left, where it says some garbage that has no actual work irrelevant, and Vasya there is neither the job description nor the staffing nor the more slugbot (or they are, but there about the caching of a word), then all that he would do it (and if you're smart — may be the issue and results of colleagues (which happens not so rarely)).
2. Bob with his new algorithm (developed in the framework of official duties) came to the conference. During the conference, Peter publicly suggested several improvements. Bob put them into the algorithm. Six months later, Peter asked for his payments from the company Vasi for the use of his improvements.
All that is announced publicly — loses the opportunity for patent protection. (see "Error opening").
Therefore, reporting on the new algorithm Bob on him — had in his pocket patent pending.
After publicly announcing improvements, they will not be able to patent nor John, nor Peter.
(although John, the subject heard, may modify a patent application, for example developing and detalita heard thoughts)
To demand payment from the company Vasi for using his improvement, Peter six months can not, because no company in their right mind and memory (by Russia, for obvious reasons excluded) are not "to put into your business turnover" it is not clear whose work.
To request payments or for patent infringement (which in this case is not), or for violation of copyright.
Copyright is the right to works of science, literature, art, etc.
In this case it is the work of science.
The only thing Peter can then do is to demand recognition of a co-sponsor of the improvements, respectively — the mention of himself as a co-author on all subsequent publications of these improvements (it the machine will increase the citation index).
Copyrights and rights to use it are two different things (see Bug "the Confusion between copyright and not the copyright").
If he wants money, he needs the break of the conference to draft a patent application with a description of these improvements, quickly to leave her in the office of the patent office (or at least by Fax or soap from the floor), and just waiting for a response "accept" (and for the guarantee — next day, already having in your pocket patent pending) — to announce these improvements.
3. Bob has developed (in the framework of official duties) of the new algorithm. He also used it (with some modification) in the product, which is exposed for General free use. Company competitor used the algorithm from Vasinova own product. Vasina company found out.
If the algorithm and service development, Vasya cannot use it in your product (but maybe for personal consumption), and certainly can not give it for gratuitous use to third parties.
It wasn't his horse.
The competitor used is not a product, and algorithm.
For example broke the code and took out the idea.
If the idea-algorithm-method patent pending and has not, it can use who wants to.
(in the optimal case, if it is also still not published, company-competitor — should she fast to write patent application and throw it in the patent office from myself (fools have to learn))
If there is a patent pending, Vasina a company that quietly sits and waits for the competitor would grow an udder, and received a patent starts the milking.
4. If the employment contract stipulates that the results of the work of the employee are the property of the employer, whether it means a gun that any demands to the employer on the payment of copyright either before or after the dismissal can not be present?
Of course we are talking about the case when the results were appropriately decorated in the patents by the employee in his name (in the process, or after dismissal).
If the development service (employment/contract n + staffing + job descriptions + office work), the remuneration he receives and so, in view of the funds (salary+more, accountants — you know).
Accordingly, no clearance of them the more of the patents to be — can't.
He is the author, but not the patentee.
(the author of the novel — writer, but all rights to the novel from the publisher)
Patents — either at the company or the design is not patented, but is protected as know-how (respectively, it — prohibition on disclosure).
Many companies (even here, in Russia), the most important decisions and development, with authors often apart from the obligatory gentlemen's set (labor/contract n + staffing + job descriptions + office work) is shaped by a special micro-contracts for the transfer of rights to patents for $1.
5. The designer drew me a picture. I paid and got the original. And implemented in your project. How to avoid unnecessary problems, without the extra instruments. I'm not going to make the contract icon for$1?
If you are too lazy once naguglit the typical contract on an one leaf, and then just have him print/sign and receive statements of payments of $1, then... sooner or later you will have some difficulty.
First, he can sell this picture... to other same buyers.
Second, it may be that he did not draw, and just stole someone else's (see about the scandal with the stolen logo of the Bolshoi Theatre).
Third, when selling softiny the buyer, the normal buyer will always require the absence of product dirt.
It usually has the appearance of a phrase in the contract "... the seller guarantees the corresponding rights to the product, and the absence of claims and claims of third parties..." + "... in the event of claims by third parties...", etc.
If you took the trouble once naguglit the typical contract on an one leaf, print/sign and receive receipts on payment of $1, all risks on these phrases you will assume.
And so they — at design studios, to which it will be possible to claim.
"Rules of the road — written in blood"
6. Some time ago people from my University said that the technology created in the framework of diploma and thesis works of undergraduate and graduate students are the property of the institution. However, if you read the civil code, article 1234 explicitly mentioned that this requires the agreement of alienation of exclusive rights. When you run the thesis no agreement is signed: the only task on the job, Nauchnye opinion and review. About labor relations here, as far as I understand it, also can not speak: the student is not an employee of the University. If possible, can you comment on the following situation: "Bob, in the framework of his thesis invented a new method of hash tables. Successfully then he received a patent and established a company that sells a program that implements the method. After some time, people came from the University, and began to say that Bob is very wrong."
Actually it climbs in the next topic ("Errors of protection of IP"), okay.
It depends on where Vasin University is, and what is written in his contract for training.
If the University of the West, there is this — strictly all that has been created on the topic of learning, even without the use of infrastructure goes in share ownership with the University.
(differences — a lot, between different countries, States and even faculties of the same University (often faculties have commercial independence))
On the principle of iron.
For example, read: www.business-magazine.ru/mech_new/experience/pub113864/page/all
(this is why the studios, zamachivaya startups on the topic of study (be that Zuckerberg or gates) are forced to leave the University and go to the free bread)
Very much depends on the learning environment, for example, if a student learns with use of means of the Fund of the University, or funds of the Corporation, is a separate addition to the contract including the question prescribed separately.
With the teacher the situation is even worse as for example in the United States — decided not to stay in graduate school at his University, the people there often wanders, temporarily moonlighting in other universities, collaborating with companies, etc., etc.
And everyone — is governed by a separate, multiple-page documents.
(this applies to local Russian-tion of the teacher and ran-ovtsev, driving back on internships and exchanges, working on any grants, etc., our business — conclusion technological developments and startups on the world market, and if the person before doing this though recently spent a month in any Western University, we immediately give up, because there is the catch — nothing, 5 years of patents on the subject of feeding — it is impossible)
But you need to remember 2 things.
Thing again:
If the subject and the idea the student suggested the teacher, he at least co-author, and maybe even all will require (see earlier about co-authorship).
Thing number two:
If the development usalos property and the property of the University, it is in principle for this — can demand compensation.
:
of the civil code, Article 1370.
...
5. Invention, utility model or industrial design created by an employee using monetary, technical or other material means of the employer but not in connection with the performance of their duties or specific tasks of the employer are not official. The right to receiving patent and exclusive right to such invention, useful model or industrial sample belong to the employee. In this case, the employer may, at its option:
— warrant granting him gratuitous ordinary (non-exclusive) license to use the created result of intellectual activity for own needs on all period of validity of the exclusive right, or
— reimbursement of costs incurred in connection with creation such inventions, the useful model or industrial sample.
This is for staff.
And for students — Google "Unjust enrichment".
(in the case of extraction of any profit, except for pure knowledge, but if profit is not, people may try to wriggle out, saying that the purpose of all of samudi was the acquisition of knowledge and development of science for which the University and built)
Article based on information from habrahabr.ru
Loss especially insulting, given that these errors repeatedly described and analyzed in scores of open and publicly available sources.
Not in the least claim to originality and exclusiveness, try to collect in this series of posts a dozen of the most common, obvious and relatively easy to necessary errors, elimination of which greatly increases the chances of success.
For convenience, descriptions of errors will understand on increase them complexity.
========================================
"Error of authorship"
NOTE: Everything written below applies to any of the intangible objects that exist as source in the IT industry and outside it, but which it can get (from a scientific article took the algorithm from a magazine — I took a picture for the interface of radio programs, have borrowed a motive for the voice on-screen buttons, etc.).
Mistake # 1 "the Confusion between copyright and not the copyright"
This error is not just common, but universal.
The author of an intangible object (algorithm/program/picture/music, etc.) recognized entity (person, citizen, person without citizenship, etc.), actions for which this object was created.
Before the object is created (born), about its existence no one except the author may not know, but after the act of creation (birth), the object begins to live his life, and the author's own.
Accordingly, they both have their own, and entirely different rights.
From the author — see "more", or as they are called "moral" right.
They consist of rights:
1. To call yourself the author of this object; ("I, Bob — authored this algorithm/program/picture");
2. Include your name as the author name of the facility; ("Algorithm/program/picture no.5. Author — Bob");
and (with significant restrictions)
3. Give the object a "name" (the name). ("Bob the hash Algorithm tables")
This is "more" right!
The meaning of these rights that we can prove his (and its) authorship, and require (with some limitations) specify the name of the author as the name of the Creator of the object.
These rights are protected in perpetuity, they are inalienable (cannot be taken) and non-transferable (cannot be transferred), and the waiver of these rights is null and void (of no effect).
This list of "copyright" the rights — exhausted.
All other rights not copyrights.
And the most important of them is the right to use the object.
(sometimes incorrectly referred to as "property")
The right to use the facility at the request of the author may be transferred to any other person under the contract.
The transfer may occur before the appearance of the object on light (the publishing contract to write the story, ordering the artist's paintings, service development), at the time of this occurrence, or after creation.
The composition of the transferred rights, and conditions of transfer are determined by the parties and fixed in the contract, adjusted for the requirement of the laws of different jurisdictions.
(PS. If the subject is the author, not to have legal capacity (depicting elephants, singing dogs, mentally ill, etc.) that all rights to use objects (but not more!) — originally owned by the guardian author)
Error number 2 "Collaboration"
In all that relates to "copyright" relationship, the first stage featured two sides — "author" and "second party" (the publisher, the customer, employer, etc.).
But "author" — does not have to be "man".
He can be a team (Vasya+Petya+nick).
All members of the team jointly creates the object are co-authors.
The rights of all coauthors are fully equal.
Accordingly, if they then begin to each other to argue, to divide these rights and to determine the share and contribution of each — can only court, and that is very subjective (where the court finds out that it was actually).
EXAMPLE:
"the Author's contract No. 6585 from 12 January 2013
Authors: Vasya, Petya, Kolya
Plenipotentiary representative of the object sale: Bob
The minimum sell price: 100 RUB.
The division of income from the sale of the object: the Bob — 50%, Pete — 25% Cola — 25%."
etc.
If the author is not one, but several, and no such agreement, no meaningful deal with the object to commit — will not work (any of the sponsors can deal this challenge).
Mistake number 3 "Improper collaboration"
— Unwanted collaboration
The rights of all coauthors are fully equal.
One of these rights is the right to continued use of the object to create on its basis or its use of other objects.
EXAMPLE 1:
Vasya, Petya, Kolya to his high school did R & d on hashing tables (in the research reports — are all three authors), then Kohl's has disappeared, and Bob and Pete have perfected the technique of Nira, and it was patented, and patent — sold to Microsoft.
Three years later, nick emerged and demanded the inclusion of himself among the co-authors of the patent and their 33% profit. (if at them on NIR were not collective copyright — see above)
EXAMPLE No. 2:
Vasya, Petya, Kolya — nakropal an article outlining the technique of hash tables, then nick disappeared, and Alex and Bob modified the methodology, and based on it pile program, which was sold to Microsoft.
Three years later, nick emerged, demanded the inclusion of himself among the sponsors of the programs and their 33% profit. (if at them on NIR were not collective copyright — see above)
MORALITY:
Doing now think, what will happen then.
In the first case, if Neera was pecking a patent, you can patent part of it (hashing) to allocate to Neera as the work of Alex and Bob, and the stake — to give up something else.
In the second, is to split the article into two parts, as a collection, and part of hash — to unsubscribe, Vasya and Petya (to the authors they are), and Kohl to put the author of the part about something else.
— An unexpected collaboration
The rights of all coauthors are fully equal.
To use an object with collective authorship — it is necessary to obtain the consent of all its authors.
The authors are all those who took part in the creation of the object.
EXAMPLE 1:
Bob came up with the technique of hash tables, climbed on Habrahabr, and nakropal post.
Peter read the post and comments proposed improvement No. 1.
Total: the Author of the initial technique — Vasya, authors of improvement No. 1 — Vasya+Petya.
EXAMPLE No. 2:
Bob came up with the technique of hash tables and wanted to translate it into a program.
Bob came to startup weekend, met Petya and Kolya, was fascinated by their idea, and two days, they drank coffee, discussed the methodology and sculpted code.
Total: the Author of the initial technique — Vasya, authors of the resulting techniques and programs — Vasya+Petya+Kohl's+(some girl with glasses whose name no one asked).
MORALITY:
Doing now think, what will happen then.
In the first case the situation is saved by the footer of the post with the text "all the improvements and enhancements of this methodology are the property of Vasi".
In the second case is slightly more complicated, because many actions take place in book-entry oral form, but it is fixable.
One day before startup weekend on Habrahabr under "ideas for startups" to start a blog of the project team and working groups to use this blog on which to stand above the footer.
— Improvements in the implementation
This situation is most frequent and most important case of occurrence of "unexpected co-authorship" above.
Ideas and developments in the process of bringing to market, and especially the subsequent operation — develop, adapt and optimize, and the result may vary very much.
The technique of hash tables for the week can be transformed into improvement of No. 1, and it is a month — to improvement of No. 2, which oered one month of practical implementation — in a way to optimize memory load.
There are three options for dealing with such situations.
A) To the original text to attribute the phrase "operator/adaptator (Peter) obliged to immediately notify the VA of all changes, adaptations, improvements and enhancements to methodologies and to take actions necessary for fixing the VA the rights to these changes, enhancements and improvements"
B) to Establish joint ownership of the phrases "... is obliged to notify about the changes... .", and then:
— "everything is passed to Bob, but Bob — provides Pete the right to use improvements";
— "all given to Peter, but Peter gives Bob the right to use improvements";
— "parties will govern the use of the improvements as a result of negotiations".
C) All the improvements/changes/improvements — are passed to Pete and he for example — pays the VA % of earned profit.
If these options (of course not all at once, and what one of them) not to prescribe, resulting from such errors incorrect co-authorship to eliminate then it will be very difficult, and it may greatly complicate the sale of solutions.
Mistake # 4 "Office development"
Copyright anyone (except copycats and scribblers) are not needed. (see Mistake # 1)
To extract from the object of profit only the right of use of this object.
The right to use the object can be transferred by the author to another person under the contract.
Such a contract may be targeted on creating a specific object (to pile the interface of the "ward", to write a test Suite for the program "Excel", etc.), or framework, for the creation of many such objects on a regular basis (at constant work in the state, or on an external contract).
Such development is called "service" and all rights to it (of course other than copyright) is owned by the client.
For this purpose in the trust agreement spells out specific parameters and requirements for the object (what exactly and how exactly it should be created).
And framework — prescribes the mechanism for issuance by client/employer for job development and reception are created (a programmer from the team leader, on receiving the memo with the statement of work for the program schedule and set of tests, the programmer creates the code, runs tests, writes the system area, tacit code and sends to the supervisor, etc.).
If you make a mistake and not to create technical solutions regime service development (author in its staffing and job descriptions — not obliged to create this decision, and the employer/customer doesn't have issued the creation of this specific solutions in the form of specific instructions), then it will turn out that the author of this decision has created itself, at its own request, respectively, it is he belongs.
EXAMPLE:
Bob and Peter came up with the technique of hash tables, rigged up on a C++ program and began to sell its stake.
Nick put it in your utilities package, and began to advance on the market.
Things went well, and the looming prospect of the sale of the package (in the form of sales Colin startup) to Microsoft.
Microsoft need to deal one owner with all the rights.
Hanging on the sides of the nozzle in the form of incomprehensible Vasya and sing it — is not necessary.
Besides yourself and Bob with Peter in this situation is likely to roll out of the sponge, and wants more than they wanted from Koli.
So nick hired Vasya and Petya to his staff, in staffing and job descriptions have written that their function — to sculpt the Java aaplet of hash tables, and the service note number 1 (duplicated in case the notary) instructed them to sculpt on the Java aaplet of hash tables.
After the sculpture — took a program written memo, paid them a salary and bonus.
And then severance. (why would he need them if the program is left up to him)
Mistake # 5 "Authorship $"
To complete the theme can be the most harmless of the author's error — mistake of non-use of the mechanisms of authorship for solving related problems.
EXAMPLE 1:
Bob wants to legally profit from his own company.
To the ego as a salary or as dividends due to the tax rates unprofitable.
Bob sculpts a utility model (someone else's copy of the latest newsletter
Rospatent, puts their name and serves as his), and then licenses its high cost of your plant.
To receive legitimate and legal payment of royalties.
EXAMPLE No. 2:
Same as above, only John is registered as an employee, the patent for utility model is issued by the company (the author is still it, the copyright is not transferable (if you forgot — read the article from the beginning)), and he gets as remuneration for the creation of a model.
===============================================
Earlier:
— "Error individualization"
— "Error disclosure"
— "Error offshore"
Next:
— "Error IP protection"
— "Error budget money"
— "Errors of double technologies"
— "Errors toxic" investments"
— "Error license"
— "positioning Errors"
UPDATE
"1. Bob was performing work tasks. In the course of work he invented the algorithm, which is extremely promising. Bob took the day off, the modified algorithm (described a useful model of ITP, in General, have formalized their development in suitable for patenting) and issued a patent. Went back to work and offered his company he has the patent to buy."
Parse order.
The patent it for a day off to — can't patent IT invention this year at least, but not the essence.
Key — "John performed the work tasks. In the course of work he invented algorithm".
If the algorithm — caching of pages, and the staffing and job descriptions he employed for the development of algorithms for caching pages, and last month he requested a memo to develop an algorithm for caching of pages, this is a pure office development. (it is hired for this, and that is what is being paid for)
If he came up with the algorithm to convert a color when color correction, the algorithm is entirely his and he can dispose of them at its discretion.
Again, in such cases — you just have to take those documents on which Bob work for the company, and read what is written there.
And if it says something like "the Contractor shall immediately notify customer of created during the implementation of this contract is copyrightable intellectual property, and to inform the Customer ...." , and no questions — no.
It all depends on the adequacy of his employers/customers.
If they are not idiots, Bob hired a set of documents where there is a special agreement on service development, confidentiality agreement, noncompete agreement, non-proliferation of technological experience.
We for companies doing this package for $500 (and it is only in time and correctly issue the system area), and any foreign company and so he is.
If Bob is hired on contract left, where it says some garbage that has no actual work irrelevant, and Vasya there is neither the job description nor the staffing nor the more slugbot (or they are, but there about the caching of a word), then all that he would do it (and if you're smart — may be the issue and results of colleagues (which happens not so rarely)).
2. Bob with his new algorithm (developed in the framework of official duties) came to the conference. During the conference, Peter publicly suggested several improvements. Bob put them into the algorithm. Six months later, Peter asked for his payments from the company Vasi for the use of his improvements.
All that is announced publicly — loses the opportunity for patent protection. (see "Error opening").
Therefore, reporting on the new algorithm Bob on him — had in his pocket patent pending.
After publicly announcing improvements, they will not be able to patent nor John, nor Peter.
(although John, the subject heard, may modify a patent application, for example developing and detalita heard thoughts)
To demand payment from the company Vasi for using his improvement, Peter six months can not, because no company in their right mind and memory (by Russia, for obvious reasons excluded) are not "to put into your business turnover" it is not clear whose work.
To request payments or for patent infringement (which in this case is not), or for violation of copyright.
Copyright is the right to works of science, literature, art, etc.
In this case it is the work of science.
The only thing Peter can then do is to demand recognition of a co-sponsor of the improvements, respectively — the mention of himself as a co-author on all subsequent publications of these improvements (it the machine will increase the citation index).
Copyrights and rights to use it are two different things (see Bug "the Confusion between copyright and not the copyright").
If he wants money, he needs the break of the conference to draft a patent application with a description of these improvements, quickly to leave her in the office of the patent office (or at least by Fax or soap from the floor), and just waiting for a response "accept" (and for the guarantee — next day, already having in your pocket patent pending) — to announce these improvements.
3. Bob has developed (in the framework of official duties) of the new algorithm. He also used it (with some modification) in the product, which is exposed for General free use. Company competitor used the algorithm from Vasinova own product. Vasina company found out.
If the algorithm and service development, Vasya cannot use it in your product (but maybe for personal consumption), and certainly can not give it for gratuitous use to third parties.
It wasn't his horse.
The competitor used is not a product, and algorithm.
For example broke the code and took out the idea.
If the idea-algorithm-method patent pending and has not, it can use who wants to.
(in the optimal case, if it is also still not published, company-competitor — should she fast to write patent application and throw it in the patent office from myself (fools have to learn))
If there is a patent pending, Vasina a company that quietly sits and waits for the competitor would grow an udder, and received a patent starts the milking.
4. If the employment contract stipulates that the results of the work of the employee are the property of the employer, whether it means a gun that any demands to the employer on the payment of copyright either before or after the dismissal can not be present?
Of course we are talking about the case when the results were appropriately decorated in the patents by the employee in his name (in the process, or after dismissal).
If the development service (employment/contract n + staffing + job descriptions + office work), the remuneration he receives and so, in view of the funds (salary+more, accountants — you know).
Accordingly, no clearance of them the more of the patents to be — can't.
He is the author, but not the patentee.
(the author of the novel — writer, but all rights to the novel from the publisher)
Patents — either at the company or the design is not patented, but is protected as know-how (respectively, it — prohibition on disclosure).
Many companies (even here, in Russia), the most important decisions and development, with authors often apart from the obligatory gentlemen's set (labor/contract n + staffing + job descriptions + office work) is shaped by a special micro-contracts for the transfer of rights to patents for $1.
5. The designer drew me a picture. I paid and got the original. And implemented in your project. How to avoid unnecessary problems, without the extra instruments. I'm not going to make the contract icon for$1?
If you are too lazy once naguglit the typical contract on an one leaf, and then just have him print/sign and receive statements of payments of $1, then... sooner or later you will have some difficulty.
First, he can sell this picture... to other same buyers.
Second, it may be that he did not draw, and just stole someone else's (see about the scandal with the stolen logo of the Bolshoi Theatre).
Third, when selling softiny the buyer, the normal buyer will always require the absence of product dirt.
It usually has the appearance of a phrase in the contract "... the seller guarantees the corresponding rights to the product, and the absence of claims and claims of third parties..." + "... in the event of claims by third parties...", etc.
If you took the trouble once naguglit the typical contract on an one leaf, print/sign and receive receipts on payment of $1, all risks on these phrases you will assume.
And so they — at design studios, to which it will be possible to claim.
"Rules of the road — written in blood"
6. Some time ago people from my University said that the technology created in the framework of diploma and thesis works of undergraduate and graduate students are the property of the institution. However, if you read the civil code, article 1234 explicitly mentioned that this requires the agreement of alienation of exclusive rights. When you run the thesis no agreement is signed: the only task on the job, Nauchnye opinion and review. About labor relations here, as far as I understand it, also can not speak: the student is not an employee of the University. If possible, can you comment on the following situation: "Bob, in the framework of his thesis invented a new method of hash tables. Successfully then he received a patent and established a company that sells a program that implements the method. After some time, people came from the University, and began to say that Bob is very wrong."
Actually it climbs in the next topic ("Errors of protection of IP"), okay.
It depends on where Vasin University is, and what is written in his contract for training.
If the University of the West, there is this — strictly all that has been created on the topic of learning, even without the use of infrastructure goes in share ownership with the University.
(differences — a lot, between different countries, States and even faculties of the same University (often faculties have commercial independence))
On the principle of iron.
For example, read: www.business-magazine.ru/mech_new/experience/pub113864/page/all
(this is why the studios, zamachivaya startups on the topic of study (be that Zuckerberg or gates) are forced to leave the University and go to the free bread)
Very much depends on the learning environment, for example, if a student learns with use of means of the Fund of the University, or funds of the Corporation, is a separate addition to the contract including the question prescribed separately.
With the teacher the situation is even worse as for example in the United States — decided not to stay in graduate school at his University, the people there often wanders, temporarily moonlighting in other universities, collaborating with companies, etc., etc.
And everyone — is governed by a separate, multiple-page documents.
(this applies to local Russian-tion of the teacher and ran-ovtsev, driving back on internships and exchanges, working on any grants, etc., our business — conclusion technological developments and startups on the world market, and if the person before doing this though recently spent a month in any Western University, we immediately give up, because there is the catch — nothing, 5 years of patents on the subject of feeding — it is impossible)
But you need to remember 2 things.
Thing again:
If the subject and the idea the student suggested the teacher, he at least co-author, and maybe even all will require (see earlier about co-authorship).
Thing number two:
If the development usalos property and the property of the University, it is in principle for this — can demand compensation.
:
of the civil code, Article 1370.
...
5. Invention, utility model or industrial design created by an employee using monetary, technical or other material means of the employer but not in connection with the performance of their duties or specific tasks of the employer are not official. The right to receiving patent and exclusive right to such invention, useful model or industrial sample belong to the employee. In this case, the employer may, at its option:
— warrant granting him gratuitous ordinary (non-exclusive) license to use the created result of intellectual activity for own needs on all period of validity of the exclusive right, or
— reimbursement of costs incurred in connection with creation such inventions, the useful model or industrial sample.
This is for staff.
And for students — Google "Unjust enrichment".
(in the case of extraction of any profit, except for pure knowledge, but if profit is not, people may try to wriggle out, saying that the purpose of all of samudi was the acquisition of knowledge and development of science for which the University and built)
Комментарии
Отправить комментарий