Seemingly trivial things that annoy you

pinno

JimD666 said:

pinno said:

masjer said:

pinno said:

JimD666 said:

UPS Delivery Emails. "Your parcel is out for Delivery" Quick check of the tracking and apparently it is indeed out for delivery.

From Castle Donnington.

320 miles away.

Yeah that isn't turning up today.

Trying to work out where (roughly) you could be in the UK to be 320 miles away and not in the sea.
Castle Donnington (Derbyshire) to Penzance... 311 miles. Nope.
You must be North of the border.

I am wondering what's in the parcel.

A wetsuit?

masjer said:

pinno said:

masjer said:

pinno said:

JimD666 said:

UPS Delivery Emails. "Your parcel is out for Delivery" Quick check of the tracking and apparently it is indeed out for delivery.

From Castle Donnington.

320 miles away.

Yeah that isn't turning up today.

Trying to work out where (roughly) you could be in the UK to be 320 miles away and not in the sea.
Castle Donnington (Derbyshire) to Penzance... 311 miles. Nope.
You must be North of the border.

I am wondering what's in the parcel.

A wetsuit?

Pirate outfit?

Insulin infusion sets for the OH if you really want to know. Not as interesting but far more important

Boring boring

Out of curiosity, does the NHS not supply you?

JimD666

pinno said:

JimD666 said:

pinno said:

masjer said:

pinno said:

JimD666 said:

UPS Delivery Emails. "Your parcel is out for Delivery" Quick check of the tracking and apparently it is indeed out for delivery.

From Castle Donnington.

320 miles away.

Yeah that isn't turning up today.

Trying to work out where (roughly) you could be in the UK to be 320 miles away and not in the sea.
Castle Donnington (Derbyshire) to Penzance... 311 miles. Nope.
You must be North of the border.

I am wondering what's in the parcel.

A wetsuit?

masjer said:

pinno said:

masjer said:

pinno said:

JimD666 said:

UPS Delivery Emails. "Your parcel is out for Delivery" Quick check of the tracking and apparently it is indeed out for delivery.

From Castle Donnington.

320 miles away.

Yeah that isn't turning up today.

Trying to work out where (roughly) you could be in the UK to be 320 miles away and not in the sea.
Castle Donnington (Derbyshire) to Penzance... 311 miles. Nope.
You must be North of the border.

I am wondering what's in the parcel.

A wetsuit?

Pirate outfit?

Insulin infusion sets for the OH if you really want to know. Not as interesting but far more important

Boring boring

Out of curiosity, does the NHS not supply you?

Oh the NHS is paying for it. The insulin vials and the Libre GCM sensors are on prescription. The infusion sets that attach the insulin pump to the body come direct from the Manufacturer via an account the NHS set up. Quick online order and they turn up.

Eventually at least

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Is this experience related to big pharma specifically?

All sorts. Aerospace, medical devices, petrochem, not big pharma. But I don't see why it would be different.

Different industries have different pay cultures, often substantially. Even for like-for-like roles. So I'm of the view it is quite different.

I appreciate you know infinitely more about this than me ( ) but I literally have the data in front of me which suggests those at the big pharma firms associated with the vaccines did see some reward for it.

You still aren't getting it.

We aren't talking about overall renumeration, but about reward for innovation. Necessarily different industry sectors offer different pay levels and bonus structures. But there is some uniformity because they pull from the same talent pool and although I'm willing to venture that drug discovery isn't radically different from any other ip generating industry when it comes to inventor rewards, I'm genuinely interested to know.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Given the average cost to develop an new drug is around $1.3bn, I suspect it's not as straightforward as giving 5 people a big bonus.

Do you understand that I know infinitely more about this that you do?

Has the inverse ever stopped you?

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Given the average cost to develop an new drug is around $1.3bn, I suspect it's not as straightforward as giving 5 people a big bonus.

Do you understand that I know infinitely more about this that you do?

Has the inverse ever stopped you?

Nope. You?

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Given the average cost to develop an new drug is around $1.3bn, I suspect it's not as straightforward as giving 5 people a big bonus.

Do you understand that I know infinitely more about this that you do?

Has the inverse ever stopped you?

Nope. You?

Yes, it has.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Given the average cost to develop an new drug is around $1.3bn, I suspect it's not as straightforward as giving 5 people a big bonus.

Do you understand that I know infinitely more about this that you do?

Has the inverse ever stopped you?

Nope. You?

Yes, it has.

When was that exactly?

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Other things that annoy me.

Press reports of the mRNA vaccine company bosses earning a lot of money the last 2 years.

Of course they've earned a lot of money. Of all the people who deserve to have earned a lot of money, the firms and the staff behind the vaccines should be right up there?!

Did the press reports say anything about the staff behind the vaccines earning a lot of money?

You don't think running the company that develops this stuff is worth much?

I think only that person, or small group of people, have renumeration that reflects this. The scientists will not, the inventors will receive a book token of theor name is on a patent (in most companies)

Still sure the right people are getting rich?

Depends what's in your contract I guess. Otherwise who decides who the right people are?

You don't think the people who invented a vaccine that has saved hundreds of thousands of lives are the right people?

No-one saying that tbf. Because they're not on the board their comp doesn't need to be disclosed.

I did NCT with someone who work at AZ and they were on the periphery of the jab work and they did pretty well out of it themselves by the sounds of it.

It is very rare for there to be anything other than a modest lump sum for being an inventor named on a patent, regardless of the actual value of that patent. Ive heard of numbers like £500 or £1000, that ball park.

Sometimes, rarely, a particularly valuable patent commands more inventor compensation. In a company I worked for, because it was self evidently equitable (a technology was sold for several million, including the IP), they made some payments beyond contractual obligation.

Academics get a much better deal, often based on income generated by IP, but so many university inventions are early stage, badly commercialised and/or not helped by the academics themselves, it is normally a moot point.

FYI in UK law an invention belongs to your employer automatically under most circumstances, unless a contract gives an inventor more rights. The bar for financial reward is very high. So the UK is very business friendly, but not employee inventor friendly.

Just a thought, but I would suggest that the inventor would be far less likely to develop the vaccine without the highly equipped lab and resources that their employer provides. Much of the research the business owners fund will also lead to dead ends. Most creative enterprises are very much a team effort rather than an individual genius.

Indeed this is the basis of the law in the UK and many other countries.

Yet the CEO benefits to some degree proportionally, having not done anything differently in their own role.

Just an observation that perhaps the boundary in the UK isn't quite right. There would be unintended consequences if companies started handing out large inventor rewards - such as inventors quitting and taking up golf - but on the other hand would companies stimulate IP generation, and commitment to developing it, if there was more than a financial token gesture available at the end of the day?

- separate point, inventorship isn't defined, but you can say what it isn't. It isn't routine experimentation. So if you think of something and ask a person or a team of people to run some test to verify it, or make a prototype, those people aren't inventors. Notionally, their role would be identical if they were working on something that wasn't an invention.

Different field and scale, I appreciate, but similarly we own the copyright of all our staff's work. I think you are under selling what senior management do. If they screw up then there is no business to employ the inventors. If the inventors feel they are not getting a 'fair' cut they are free to move or start their own business.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Other things that annoy me.

Press reports of the mRNA vaccine company bosses earning a lot of money the last 2 years.

Of course they've earned a lot of money. Of all the people who deserve to have earned a lot of money, the firms and the staff behind the vaccines should be right up there?!

Did the press reports say anything about the staff behind the vaccines earning a lot of money?

You don't think running the company that develops this stuff is worth much?

I think only that person, or small group of people, have renumeration that reflects this. The scientists will not, the inventors will receive a book token of theor name is on a patent (in most companies)

Still sure the right people are getting rich?

Depends what's in your contract I guess. Otherwise who decides who the right people are?

You don't think the people who invented a vaccine that has saved hundreds of thousands of lives are the right people?

No-one saying that tbf. Because they're not on the board their comp doesn't need to be disclosed.

I did NCT with someone who work at AZ and they were on the periphery of the jab work and they did pretty well out of it themselves by the sounds of it.

It is very rare for there to be anything other than a modest lump sum for being an inventor named on a patent, regardless of the actual value of that patent. Ive heard of numbers like £500 or £1000, that ball park.

Sometimes, rarely, a particularly valuable patent commands more inventor compensation. In a company I worked for, because it was self evidently equitable (a technology was sold for several million, including the IP), they made some payments beyond contractual obligation.

Academics get a much better deal, often based on income generated by IP, but so many university inventions are early stage, badly commercialised and/or not helped by the academics themselves, it is normally a moot point.

FYI in UK law an invention belongs to your employer automatically under most circumstances, unless a contract gives an inventor more rights. The bar for financial reward is very high. So the UK is very business friendly, but not employee inventor friendly.

Just a thought, but I would suggest that the inventor would be far less likely to develop the vaccine without the highly equipped lab and resources that their employer provides. Much of the research the business owners fund will also lead to dead ends. Most creative enterprises are very much a team effort rather than an individual genius.

Indeed this is the basis of the law in the UK and many other countries.

Yet the CEO benefits to some degree proportionally, having not done anything differently in their own role.

Just an observation that perhaps the boundary in the UK isn't quite right. There would be unintended consequences if companies started handing out large inventor rewards - such as inventors quitting and taking up golf - but on the other hand would companies stimulate IP generation, and commitment to developing it, if there was more than a financial token gesture available at the end of the day?

- separate point, inventorship isn't defined, but you can say what it isn't. It isn't routine experimentation. So if you think of something and ask a person or a team of people to run some test to verify it, or make a prototype, those people aren't inventors. Notionally, their role would be identical if they were working on something that wasn't an invention.

Different field and scale, I appreciate, but similarly we own the copyright of all our staff's work. I think you are under selling what senior management do. If they screw up then there is no business to employ the inventors. If the inventors feel they are not getting a 'fair' cut they are free to move or start their own business.

True but there was stories of companies seeking compensation when someone did just that within a relatively quick period of time.
"Ah but you must have started development while with us." kind of thing.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Is this experience related to big pharma specifically?

All sorts. Aerospace, medical devices, petrochem, not big pharma. But I don't see why it would be different.

Different industries have different pay cultures, often substantially. Even for like-for-like roles. So I'm of the view it is quite different.

I appreciate you know infinitely more about this than me ( ) but I literally have the data in front of me which suggests those at the big pharma firms associated with the vaccines did see some reward for it.

You still aren't getting it.

We aren't talking about overall renumeration, but about reward for innovation. Necessarily different industry sectors offer different pay levels and bonus structures. But there is some uniformity because they pull from the same talent pool and although I'm willing to venture that drug discovery isn't radically different from any other ip generating industry when it comes to inventor rewards, I'm genuinely interested to know.

Is innovation not their job and therefore covered by basic salary?

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Given the average cost to develop an new drug is around $1.3bn, I suspect it's not as straightforward as giving 5 people a big bonus.

Do you understand that I know infinitely more about this that you do?

Has the inverse ever stopped you?

Nope. You?

Yes, it has.

When was that exactly?

Would you like a list of all the subjects I don't post about because I know nothing about them?

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Is this experience related to big pharma specifically?

All sorts. Aerospace, medical devices, petrochem, not big pharma. But I don't see why it would be different.

Different industries have different pay cultures, often substantially. Even for like-for-like roles. So I'm of the view it is quite different.

I appreciate you know infinitely more about this than me ( ) but I literally have the data in front of me which suggests those at the big pharma firms associated with the vaccines did see some reward for it.

You still aren't getting it.

We aren't talking about overall renumeration, but about reward for innovation. Necessarily different industry sectors offer different pay levels and bonus structures. But there is some uniformity because they pull from the same talent pool and although I'm willing to venture that drug discovery isn't radically different from any other ip generating industry when it comes to inventor rewards, I'm genuinely interested to know.

Is innovation not their job and therefore covered by basic salary?

You mistake me for someone who disagrees. Just offering some thoughts for debate.

We still have the issue that the basic salary is not contingent on innovation at all and UK companies lose a lot of IP because inventors see involvement with patents as a distraction - in some companies. I think many companies could do more, in their own self interest.

And again, your employed automatically owns your copyright under most circumstances. And design rights. Your employment contract either merely confirms that or offers ypu more than your statutory rights.

If your contract seeks to capture IP that isn't generated as part of your normal duties - e.g. if you happen to be Banksy - that's not enforceable, as far as I know.

briantrumpet

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Given the average cost to develop an new drug is around $1.3bn, I suspect it's not as straightforward as giving 5 people a big bonus.

Do you understand that I know infinitely more about this that you do?

Has the inverse ever stopped you?

Nope. You?

Yes, it has.

When was that exactly?

Would you like a list of all the subjects I don't post about because I know nothing about them?

Eh? This is the internet...

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Given the average cost to develop an new drug is around $1.3bn, I suspect it's not as straightforward as giving 5 people a big bonus.

Do you understand that I know infinitely more about this that you do?

Has the inverse ever stopped you?

Nope. You?

Yes, it has.

When was that exactly?

Would you like a list of all the subjects I don't post about because I know nothing about them?

It's the stuff you know a little about that catches you out.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Is this experience related to big pharma specifically?

All sorts. Aerospace, medical devices, petrochem, not big pharma. But I don't see why it would be different.

Different industries have different pay cultures, often substantially. Even for like-for-like roles. So I'm of the view it is quite different.

I appreciate you know infinitely more about this than me ( ) but I literally have the data in front of me which suggests those at the big pharma firms associated with the vaccines did see some reward for it.

You still aren't getting it.

We aren't talking about overall renumeration, but about reward for innovation. Necessarily different industry sectors offer different pay levels and bonus structures. But there is some uniformity because they pull from the same talent pool and although I'm willing to venture that drug discovery isn't radically different from any other ip generating industry when it comes to inventor rewards, I'm genuinely interested to know.

I mean, I certainly was discussing overall remuneration. That's how the discussion came up. Whatever hobby horse you have in this is your business.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Is this experience related to big pharma specifically?

All sorts. Aerospace, medical devices, petrochem, not big pharma. But I don't see why it would be different.

Different industries have different pay cultures, often substantially. Even for like-for-like roles. So I'm of the view it is quite different.

I appreciate you know infinitely more about this than me ( ) but I literally have the data in front of me which suggests those at the big pharma firms associated with the vaccines did see some reward for it.

You still aren't getting it.

We aren't talking about overall renumeration, but about reward for innovation. Necessarily different industry sectors offer different pay levels and bonus structures. But there is some uniformity because they pull from the same talent pool and although I'm willing to venture that drug discovery isn't radically different from any other ip generating industry when it comes to inventor rewards, I'm genuinely interested to know.

I mean, I certainly was discussing overall remuneration. That's how the discussion came up. Whatever hobby horse you have in this is your business.

Okay well you can have your own personal conversation with yourself then.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Is this experience related to big pharma specifically?

All sorts. Aerospace, medical devices, petrochem, not big pharma. But I don't see why it would be different.

Different industries have different pay cultures, often substantially. Even for like-for-like roles. So I'm of the view it is quite different.

I appreciate you know infinitely more about this than me ( ) but I literally have the data in front of me which suggests those at the big pharma firms associated with the vaccines did see some reward for it.

You still aren't getting it.

We aren't talking about overall renumeration, but about reward for innovation. Necessarily different industry sectors offer different pay levels and bonus structures. But there is some uniformity because they pull from the same talent pool and although I'm willing to venture that drug discovery isn't radically different from any other ip generating industry when it comes to inventor rewards, I'm genuinely interested to know.

I mean, I certainly was discussing overall remuneration. That's how the discussion came up. Whatever hobby horse you have in this is your business.

Okay well you can have your own personal conversation with yourself then.

😂 Says the guy who replied to RC's original post by wheeling out his anti-management hobby horse again.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Is this experience related to big pharma specifically?

All sorts. Aerospace, medical devices, petrochem, not big pharma. But I don't see why it would be different.

Different industries have different pay cultures, often substantially. Even for like-for-like roles. So I'm of the view it is quite different.

I appreciate you know infinitely more about this than me ( ) but I literally have the data in front of me which suggests those at the big pharma firms associated with the vaccines did see some reward for it.

You still aren't getting it.

We aren't talking about overall renumeration, but about reward for innovation. Necessarily different industry sectors offer different pay levels and bonus structures. But there is some uniformity because they pull from the same talent pool and although I'm willing to venture that drug discovery isn't radically different from any other ip generating industry when it comes to inventor rewards, I'm genuinely interested to know.

I mean, I certainly was discussing overall remuneration. That's how the discussion came up. Whatever hobby horse you have in this is your business.

Okay well you can have your own personal conversation with yourself then.

😂 Says the guy who replied to RC's original post by wheeling out his anti-management hobby horse again.

What do you mean anti management? I haven't suggested why a ceo isn't entitled to what they earn. More why they are singled out in this respect for the consequences of a great product or invention. Haven't had any insight from any of you on that, just that's how it is.

TheBigBean

It takes true commitment to the cause to out hobby horse Rick.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Is this experience related to big pharma specifically?

All sorts. Aerospace, medical devices, petrochem, not big pharma. But I don't see why it would be different.

Different industries have different pay cultures, often substantially. Even for like-for-like roles. So I'm of the view it is quite different.

I appreciate you know infinitely more about this than me ( ) but I literally have the data in front of me which suggests those at the big pharma firms associated with the vaccines did see some reward for it.

You still aren't getting it.

We aren't talking about overall renumeration, but about reward for innovation. Necessarily different industry sectors offer different pay levels and bonus structures. But there is some uniformity because they pull from the same talent pool and although I'm willing to venture that drug discovery isn't radically different from any other ip generating industry when it comes to inventor rewards, I'm genuinely interested to know.

I mean, I certainly was discussing overall remuneration. That's how the discussion came up. Whatever hobby horse you have in this is your business.

Okay well you can have your own personal conversation with yourself then.

😂 Says the guy who replied to RC's original post by wheeling out his anti-management hobby horse again.

What do you mean anti management? I haven't suggested why a ceo isn't entitled to what they earn. More why they are singled out in this respect for the consequences of a great product or invention. Haven't had any insight from any of you on that, just that's how it is.

See it as the equivalent of when an officer gets a medal on behalf of the actions of their unit.

Jezyboy

What about when management screw up and get generous payoffs to leave?

mrb123

Mobile websites where you have to enter your date of birth but the only way to do it is to scroll backwards on a calendar month by month from the present day, leaving you with a repetitive strain injury by the time you get there!

morstar

Jezyboy said:

What about when management screw up and get generous payoffs to leave?

This is a very important point.
I believe good management are worth good rewards but I do think the prevailing mindset in this country is that management are simply worthy of high reward regardless.
I do think that is one of the main (few) downsides to the lack of effective unions. Management define acceptable practice to suit themselves.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

It takes true commitment to the cause to out hobby horse Rick.

Its what I do for a living. Not a hobby.

First.Aspect

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Is this experience related to big pharma specifically?

All sorts. Aerospace, medical devices, petrochem, not big pharma. But I don't see why it would be different.

Different industries have different pay cultures, often substantially. Even for like-for-like roles. So I'm of the view it is quite different.

I appreciate you know infinitely more about this than me ( ) but I literally have the data in front of me which suggests those at the big pharma firms associated with the vaccines did see some reward for it.

You still aren't getting it.

We aren't talking about overall renumeration, but about reward for innovation. Necessarily different industry sectors offer different pay levels and bonus structures. But there is some uniformity because they pull from the same talent pool and although I'm willing to venture that drug discovery isn't radically different from any other ip generating industry when it comes to inventor rewards, I'm genuinely interested to know.

I mean, I certainly was discussing overall remuneration. That's how the discussion came up. Whatever hobby horse you have in this is your business.

Okay well you can have your own personal conversation with yourself then.

😂 Says the guy who replied to RC's original post by wheeling out his anti-management hobby horse again.

What do you mean anti management? I haven't suggested why a ceo isn't entitled to what they earn. More why they are singled out in this respect for the consequences of a great product or invention. Haven't had any insight from any of you on that, just that's how it is.

See it as the equivalent of when an officer gets a medal on behalf of the actions of their unit.

I'm phlegmatic about it because I will never invent anything (other than all of the things I put into patent applications to describe how someone's invention ought to have been implemented) but the Hive's response is interesting.

It is somewhat rare, but not entirely uncommon, for the technical people I deal with to be horrified and disgusted that their new invention will be worthless to them personally. So surprised that no one here at all thinks that.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Is this experience related to big pharma specifically?

All sorts. Aerospace, medical devices, petrochem, not big pharma. But I don't see why it would be different.

Different industries have different pay cultures, often substantially. Even for like-for-like roles. So I'm of the view it is quite different.

I appreciate you know infinitely more about this than me ( ) but I literally have the data in front of me which suggests those at the big pharma firms associated with the vaccines did see some reward for it.

You still aren't getting it.

We aren't talking about overall renumeration, but about reward for innovation. Necessarily different industry sectors offer different pay levels and bonus structures. But there is some uniformity because they pull from the same talent pool and although I'm willing to venture that drug discovery isn't radically different from any other ip generating industry when it comes to inventor rewards, I'm genuinely interested to know.

I mean, I certainly was discussing overall remuneration. That's how the discussion came up. Whatever hobby horse you have in this is your business.

Okay well you can have your own personal conversation with yourself then.

😂 Says the guy who replied to RC's original post by wheeling out his anti-management hobby horse again.

What do you mean anti management? I haven't suggested why a ceo isn't entitled to what they earn. More why they are singled out in this respect for the consequences of a great product or invention. Haven't had any insight from any of you on that, just that's how it is.

See it as the equivalent of when an officer gets a medal on behalf of the actions of their unit.

I'm phlegmatic about it because I will never invent anything (other than all of the things I put into patent applications to describe how someone's invention ought to have been implemented) but the Hive's response is interesting.

It is somewhat rare, but not entirely uncommon, for the technical people I deal with to be horrified and disgusted that their new invention will be worthless to them personally. So surprised that no one here at all thinks that.

My contract with a previous company included me signing over any intellectual property, it didn't even state it had to be related to my work, so even though it is never going to happen I got the clause amended. It didn't seem right that if I invented a time travel device in my spare time when employed to design roads the company would get the rights. I assume the scientists, who are far more likely to come up with something useful than me, also review their employment contract and in signing are therefore happy with this.

It's a tricky one as a share of the success certainly seems fair but the company are the ones that provide all the resource and should the scientists take a hit for all the work that doesn't bare fruit? Presumably the people with the brains to come up with the solutions are highly sought after as one of these resources and salaries reflect this (although I've been shocked by how little the research scientist roles I've seen advertised are offering so they may be trading on that innate need within scientists to find answers / solutions to problems).

pblakeney

Banks holding on to money for no good reason that I can see.
This is one example of holding on for 2 months before paying out.

Tashman

pblakeney said:

Banks holding on to money for no good reason that I can see.
This is one example of holding on for 2 months before paying out.

I can only assume it's to stop people gaining a refund on the qualifying purchase before the cashback is paid and gaming the system.

pblakeney

Tashman said:

pblakeney said:

Banks holding on to money for no good reason that I can see.
This is one example of holding on for 2 months before paying out.

I can only assume it's to stop people gaining a refund on the qualifying purchase before the cashback is paid and gaming the system.

I'd have thought one month was more than sufficient though.
Similar to how a refund can take days to clear an account in these days of electronic banking.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Is this experience related to big pharma specifically?

All sorts. Aerospace, medical devices, petrochem, not big pharma. But I don't see why it would be different.

Different industries have different pay cultures, often substantially. Even for like-for-like roles. So I'm of the view it is quite different.

I appreciate you know infinitely more about this than me ( ) but I literally have the data in front of me which suggests those at the big pharma firms associated with the vaccines did see some reward for it.

You still aren't getting it.

We aren't talking about overall renumeration, but about reward for innovation. Necessarily different industry sectors offer different pay levels and bonus structures. But there is some uniformity because they pull from the same talent pool and although I'm willing to venture that drug discovery isn't radically different from any other ip generating industry when it comes to inventor rewards, I'm genuinely interested to know.

I mean, I certainly was discussing overall remuneration. That's how the discussion came up. Whatever hobby horse you have in this is your business.

Okay well you can have your own personal conversation with yourself then.

😂 Says the guy who replied to RC's original post by wheeling out his anti-management hobby horse again.

What do you mean anti management? I haven't suggested why a ceo isn't entitled to what they earn. More why they are singled out in this respect for the consequences of a great product or invention. Haven't had any insight from any of you on that, just that's how it is.

It's of a piece with your other moans about management

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

I'm phlegmatic about it because I will never invent anything (other than all of the things I put into patent applications to describe how someone's invention ought to have been implemented) but the Hive's response is interesting.

It is somewhat rare, but not entirely uncommon, for the technical people I deal with to be horrified and disgusted that their new invention will be worthless to them personally. So surprised that no one here at all thinks that.

As FA has pointed out your employer owning the IP or copyright on any designs/creative work produced under that employment is completely standard. If they are surprised they should have paid attention at university or when they signed the contract. They are free to set up their own private consultancy and sell/license their IP that way with the trade off of less security.