主页 > 医学信息 >
NOBEL得主说谎和盗窃--如何对待职务发明
全文如下，连接见
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2005/214/1
Yale Wins Suit Against Nobel Laureate
A Nobel laureate isn't entitled to royalties from an invention that earned him a share of his prize because the idea belongs to his university. Last week, a U.S. District Court judge ordered John Fenn, a former professor of chemistry at Yale University, to pay Yale more than $1 million in damages and attorney's fees, as well as patent rights. Attorneys say the case demonstrates how universities and researchers can find themselves at odds as schools increasingly try to profit on discoveries made within their labs.
The decision is the latest round in a decade-long legal fight between Fenn, 87, and the university where he spent most of his storied career. The saga centers around electrospray ionization--a mass spectroscopy technique pioneered by Fenn at Yale in 1988--that allows researchers to characterize large biological molecules. The invention won Fenn a share of the 2002 Nobel Prize in chemistry and has touched fields ranging from drug discovery to forensics. It has also led to millions of dollars in sales of mass spectrometers.
Under the university's patent policy, Fenn should have given Yale the right of first refusal to patent his innovation. Fenn did not, and in 2003 federal judge Christopher F. Droney found that Fenn "misrepresented the importance and commercial viability of the patent … while at the same time secretly preparing a patent application in his own name." In his 8 February ruling, Droney expanded that finding by saying Fenn had "no good faith basis" to believe he had a right to the patent, which Yale had sought in court. The judge concluded that Fenn had committed "fraud" and "larceny" and awarded damages and legal fees totaling $1,037,549 to Yale plus recent legal expenses and patent rights. Fenn says he "probably" would appeal the case but declined further comment.
Although lawyers say the case raises few basic legal questions, patent attorney Dennis Crouch of McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff in Chicago says it should send a powerful signal to academics. "Professors should ensure that they are up-front with their employer about the potential market for any invention," he says.
screen.width-333)this.width=screen.width-333" width=260 height=382 title="Click to view full 200521411.jpg (260 X 382)" border=0 align=absmiddle> Under the university's patent policy, Fenn should have given Yale the right of first refusal to patent his innovation. Fenn did not, and in 2003 federal judge Christopher F. Droney found that Fenn "misrepresented the importance and commercial viability of the patent … while at the same time secretly preparing a patent application in his own name."
美国的法律和中国在发明专利申请方面的规定略有不同。
中国关于职务发明的认定，即：判断是否属于职务发明的要点主要是
1）双方事先就权属有约定的，按约定；
2）双方无约定的，即按照所述发明是否是执行本单位的任务，或主要利用本单位的物质条件完成（参见最高院有关司法解释）。
美国法律要求所有的申请人均是自然人，而单位是根据其与雇员之间的转让协议作为所述申请的受让人（asignee）。
由文章中的表述初步可知，耶鲁大学与其雇员的协议中可能规定了：作为发明人的FENN的雇主耶鲁大学对于其雇员作出的发明拥有优先受让的权利，只有耶鲁大学拒绝就某项创新内容申请专利，（Fenn should have given Yale the right of first refusal to patent his innovation.）其雇员才有权利就相关内容申请专利。
因此，Fenn的上述麻烦，可能是在向其雇主汇报相关内容的时候做了手脚。
目前，国内一些科研单位在这方面并没有十分严格和规范的操作，经常会导致专利权属纠纷。战友们在这方面也应当未雨绸缪，把相关的权益落实在纸面上，用通俗的话讲，就是“先小人后君子”，“丑话说在前头”。 好厉害阿 [标签:content1][标签:content2]
阅读本文的人还阅读：
作者:admin@医学,生命科学 2011-03-15 05:11
医学,生命科学网