'The Law on Employee-Generated Intellectual Propertyy Unduly Favours the Employer and Creates Meaningless Reward for the Employee': A Comparison of Current US, Germany and UK IP Regime

Abstract

The law on ‘employee-generated intellectual property’ differs amongst jurisdictions in the world. In the midst of the differences, one truth is still apparent. This is the fact that: somehow the employer has an edge (or could have an edge) - in terms of ‘ownership’ over the invention of his employee(s) - and therefore the resulting ‘pecuniary gains’. In the midst of this ‘seeming’ similarities as regards the positions of law in various jurisdictions, one might conclude that the law unduly ‘favours’ the employer. However, a close scrutiny of the laws does not necessarily suggest the ‘reverse’, instead, what most legal systems (in different countries) have: is a provision that tends to ‘balance’ the (colossal) right of the employer with that of the employee.This paper answers the question whether an employer is ‘unduly favoured’ and whether the employee ‘reward is meaningless.’ Two types of such ‘generated work’ are used in answering the question - Copyrightable works and patentable inventions. The discussion reflects that the employer is not ‘unduly favoured’ under the law and in every intellectual property regime. However as regards (meaningful) reward to the employee, because of the diverse positions of law in different jurisdictions; in some, the reward is meaningful, while in others, it is not. The laws in three jurisdictions (US, Germany and UK) are used in the course of the discussion, especially as regards patents/inventions. A ‘fused view’ is presented in respect of ‘copyrightable work’ because the law in this respect in the chosen jurisdictions appears largely similar.