In preparation for the June 27, 1979, Task Force meeting, Dr. Willard Marcy has requested that the enclosed written comments that were received in relation to the compensation for employed inventors survey be forwarded to you for your review. Dr. Marcy urges you to read all of the written comments which were received, since the primary topic of discussion at this meeting will be the survey results. Tabulations of the results will be transmitted to you by the 1. My present salary does not reflect my inventive capability. I left my previous employer, who owns all my patents, because he failed to recognize my contribution to the company. 2. On inventions: The most successful inventions which were commercialized were outside my assignments. Thru diligence & persistence against obstacles I pursued until company recognized invention for its commercial capabilities. I feel I I received $1.00 but never any compensation. (In 1978 the sales 3. I pioneered this invention from laboratory to pilot plant to manufacturing at two locations. When either location made bad material it was the fault of my invention, even though it had been manufactured for years. I have sat in many meetings where 2 V-P. 's and even the P would point fingers at me. After flying to the problem plant and correcting the manufacturing problem, some engineer would be fired, calm would set in until it happened again. 4. 5. Now, since sales have reached a million dollars, there is a patent I do not believe the company gives adequate recognition to employee for patents unless it is fruitful for the company. When I am hired as a scientist it is recognized by me that anything related to my company is the property of my employer. I think this is as it should be. The token payments usually given, $1, $5, $10, are just that, tokens. Salary, promotions, etc. should reflect one's value to a firm. My observation would say that is generally true. 6. I am no longer employed by the company where my invention was protected. I found out by accident from one of my colleagues that the patent was issued in my name. Only by writings to the company was I given a copy of the final patent. I never received even a $1 payment for my invention. 7. 8. X/2: There was a bonus system with employees (in 1976), I never received money because they miscalculated the pilot runs (R&D costs) for production's sales price bases. I left the company so I have no knowledge about the rest of the 3-4 years time of bonus calculations. Maybe my co-authors got something (SyGron division). At my recent employers the "one & for all $1.00" prevails. I have no quarrel with the handling of my existing patent. It was something I came up with in a routine tech service job while I was in R&D. But during the past year I was fortunate enough to solve a technical problem in an elegant way, but one with marginal patentability. The production manager said "I have half a dozen patents, but you did something that happens once in a career.' The plant manager said that it is "worth millions." So I am at age 40 making less than $25,000; I got a whopping 7% last year, a month take. (If you finesse 12 people out of one month's increase each, that's like getting one guy for a whole year.) At the last informal company gathering, I was introduced as "our mad scientist." With all of this, you will note that I did not check that I am seeking employment. When I move I will have to move quickly. This is a regional industry where it is hard to keep a secret. If one is caught looking around, a few discreet phone calls can lay the blackball on one. That sounds hard to believe, but I know people it has happened to. Try that with migrant fruit pickers and they'll get you on peonage charges, and that's a "federal case," as they say. 9. Patent was recognized by luncheon and gift worth less than $25. 10. Re: Last Patent: Employer pursued applications to the point of acceptance by Patent Office, but required to finalize by paying issuing fee, because of change in policy towards patents. At same time, employer refused to assign patent to me, or to allow me to pay issue fees (approx. $100) even though I offered to waive $200 award (for patent) and continue to assign patent to employer. Finally, patent was offered to U. S. Army by employer, free; U. S. Army accepted and filed on patent. I was awarded $200 by employer for successful patent. U. S. Army has patent. Someone needs to explain all that to me!! 11. Regarding Company Benefits Accrued By Employee Patents T. Cash Received insulting low ($1.00) 2. Company should assign cash benefits resulting from increased sales/ profits due to patent use. Profit Sharing (% of increased monies) is preferred. 3. Lack of proper company recognition and profit sharing to employee promotes decreased activity, re: creativity and interest for future patent work. 12. I believe that corporations would induce many more inventions if inventors were appropriately rewarded financially and otherwise for such distinctive contributions. Note that salesmen who sell large lots receive commissions corresponding to the size of the sale. Executives receive extra income, stock, stock options, etc. when they direct a company through a good year. I consider inventions to fit in these categories. One of my inventions resulted in a new product which sold an amount of over $1,000,000 while I was employed by the company-maybe much more after I left. I received $3 (no bonus, no special salary increase) $1 for each of U.S., Canadian, and British patents. I consider that unfair considering salesmen's commissions and executive bonuses. It was one reason I left industry to teach, and conduct my own research (which has been very successful). 13. You asked for the most recent U.S. patent that resulted from my work as an employee, but that was not a patent that covered any invention of much value to my company. They did not use the technology directly, although the principle was applied and expanded in production processes later, without patent protection, as far as I know. An earlier patent in the same technical area resulted in the establishment of a product line that has been maintained for over 20 years. Numerous modifications have been made, but the basic principle still applies. For this I received a $100 confidential* bonus and a promotion to project leader with a modest salary increase I'm not sure how it would have been fair to provide some kind of royalty for this because a large number of production & laboratory people eventually contributed to many additional steps in achieving and maintaining production of the products. Almost any system for compensation for patentable ideas can cause problems because of the problem of deciding who contributed enough to warrant the compensation as extra incentive. Large corporations are not properly organized to handle this problem without creating even more difficult ones, but it is an area that deserves attention and search for a better way to compensate the technical man who makes a lot of this industry tick. *I was instructed to tell no one I had received it. 14. The status of the scientist - inventor ! is a very unsatisfactory one. The President/owner often uses his own name as inventor or co-inventor on the patent application and apart from a casual statement of the official acceptance of the patent- the scientist receives no monetary reward. In many cases even the prestige connected with the invention (reading of a paper, etc.) is going elsewhere. My company's owner believes the payment of regular salary is a sufficient reward to the scientist, who, after all is paid just to do that! The profits my company is reaping amounts to several millions a year on this one patent only! Needless to say all older employees (with nowhere to go) are very bitter about the situation, yet unionism doesn't appeal to professionals. For all practical purposes - we are very much like the medieval serfs. I have seen to it my two children went into other professions. 15 Since the difference in salaries between creative and non-creative chemists is very small in industry, an appropriate mechanism should be devised to provide additional monetary compensation to inventors to recognize past achievements and provide encouragement for future inventions. By and large, inventors' contributions are not adequately appreciated. 16. While the company has recognized my contribution they "in no way" feel obligated to provide any monetary compensation for a product recognized as a major medical breakthrough which has accrued in excess of $1 million profit. 17. In my company, there is no way to predict what benefits may eventually result from any given patent. A letter of recognition routinely accompanies a copy of each inventors patent; this is signed by the head of the legal department. 18. I'm the only one in my department that has a patent on a material and also process. The company will get over $1 million dollars clear money from just license fees. I've received nothing except a little recognition. I had a third idea on which I believe our company and the industry Could be greatly benefited, but I've decided the extra work required in research and time is not worth it. 19. I have directed research that led to a patent on a compound that was commercialized. I had started part of the research program that led to the compound. A member of my research group was co-inventor on the patent covering the compound and had first made it. Over $80,000,000 worth of this material is sold per year. Direct monetary benefits to my subordinate or to myself have been non-existent. 20. I personally think the industrial patent situation is unfair to the inventor. For this reason I have put very little effort into patents and have pursued non-patent research instead. If industrial inventors were allowed royalties on their patents, the patent departments in companies and in Washington couldn't handle the deluge with less than 10 times their present staff. |