Ezekiel wrote:
"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:PLKdnXotOd1tnf_UnZ2dnUVZ8tLinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Lost Packet wrote:
Phil Da Lick! wrote:
The Lost Packet wrote:
So let me get this straight, the /inventor/ does not "own" his own
idea?
Not when he's technically employed by a university and inventing on
/their/ time.
Employed by a university? That's a novel interpretation of the learning
process.
it's part of the student contract, and it's perfectly legal. If you're
There atre lots of things that are "perfectly legal". That doesn't make
them morally right.
But this isn't one of those things. If someone is hired by and works for a
company. And that company pays the persons salary and provides them with
the tools (computers, labs, etc) that enables them to invent something.
Then anything that the person invents while working for the employer
belongs to the company.... and not the person.
It's insane to think that if a company like Pfizer spends millions in
research and building a state-of-the-art laboratory that when some
researchers invents a new drug... on their dollar working on company time,
it's ridiculous to think that the invention "belongs" to the person and not
the company that financed the discovery of the drug.
All well and good but universities and schools are not companies.
|
|
