Tresy Kilbourne, replying to DDeBar, wrote:
>
>>It is interesting to note that most tech., drug, etc. companies require
>>their employees to sign off on their IP, taking the position that, since
>>they are providing an environment for the research, previous foundational
>>information, etc., etc., that the IP right;y belongs to the company.
>Ironically this is roughly the logic offered by Bill Bartlett againt IP
>laws, namely that the inventor didn't "really" invent it--the larger
>society/corporation of which he/she is a part did.

Not so. The corporation is saying (and the hired researcher is agreeing)
that the product of the researcher's labour will be the property of his/her
employer. This is the same for all wage workers, the product of their
labour is expropriated by by the owners of the means of production, the
capitalist.

What I am saying is that, in the case of a research worker, the product of
whose labour being some kind of intellectual "property", that product is
not entirely theirs to sell, I therefor regard the contract as invalid and
the intellectual "property" as public.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.