Seemingly trivial things that annoy you

First.Aspect

rjsterry 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.

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.

You might be confusing criticism of bad management with a criticism of management per se. Not sure I know what examples you have in your mind though.

It has to be the case that an employer owns its employees IP (or as in some countries has a right to acquire it). Although oddly in the US, this isnt the case, and it is all dealt with contractually. Its is a more nuanced debate how much someone should be compensated for involvement in a patenting process- which is an additional contribution over most roles and also an additional time commitment (if done right).

Pross

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.

There is a good reason - it's in their account and not yours for an extra 2 months!

In the cash back example it is a bit different as it is money they are 'giving' you, definitely a pain when it is money that someone has paid you or that they are supposed to be refunding though.

pblakeney

Pross 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.

There is a good reason - it's in their account and not yours for an extra 2 months!

In the cash back example it is a bit different as it is money they are 'giving' you, definitely a pain when it is money that someone has paid you or that they are supposed to be refunding though.

Yeah, sorry, apart from the obvious.

Pross

Sharepoint - we moved to it a year or so back from a physical server but it has caused numerous problems where people have worked on what they are seeing as a current document but there have been changes that haven't synched. Not the right tool for our work as far as I can tell.

Ben6899

Pross said:

Sharepoint - we moved to it a year or so back from a physical server but it has caused numerous problems where people have worked on what they are seeing as a current document but there have been changes that haven't synched. Not the right tool for our work as far as I can tell.

It's utter sh1te.

briantrumpet

Wagner operas. Even if I were immortal, they'd still be a waste of my time.

Wheelspinner

Pross said:

Sharepoint - we moved to it a year or so back from a physical server but it has caused numerous problems where people have worked on what they are seeing as a current document but there have been changes that haven't synched. Not the right tool for our work as far as I can tell.

Wait till you are given Confluence to use instead, the product from Atlassian. Makes Sharepoint look awesome in user friendliness.

One project I was on (just ONE) I was set up by the Sys Admin for the appropriate streams. Within 8 days I had over 6000 email notifications from it, telling me “somebody just modified a document you’re linked to” or similar.

Like everybody else, I ignored then deleted them.

For the life of me, I don’t understand why the company is worth billions.

rick_chasey

Independent bike shops ffs.

I turn up with my bike as I need a few things done to it.

Me: “so I’m looking to get a few thi”

Bike shop man: “let me stop you there. You’ve come here on a Friday lunch expecting any work done on a bike. Well it’s far too late, I don’t do services on Saturdays and I’m going on holiday so come back in 9 days”

Me: “could I at least say what I need doing?”

Him: “absolutely no point. See ya”


🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

Man I miss the Cullum Street Evans. Guys in there were so reliable and efficient.

Tashman

rick_chasey said:

Independent bike shops ffs.

I turn up with my bike as I need a few things done to it.

Me: “so I’m looking to get a few thi”

Bike shop man: “let me stop you there. You’ve come here on a Friday lunch expecting any work done on a bike. Well it’s far too late, I don’t do services on Saturdays and I’m going on holiday so come back in 9 days”

Me: “could I at least say what I need doing?”

Him: “absolutely no point. See ya”


🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

Man I miss the Cullum Street Evans. Guys in there were so reliable and efficient.

At least he didn't promise and fail to deliver! He was already switched off and ready to go. Best not let him half heartedly mess with our bike.

rick_chasey

*sigh* I guess so. Amazingly rude. He got shirty with me over email (just before I got rona) when i emailed what I was hoping for and then said I was going to bring my own cassette for him to fit.


Anyway, there's a place further down the road that sells BSOs and 2nd hand pub bikes and they said "sounds good - saturday afternoon?" and it's with them now.

They seem to know what they're talking about so should be fine. A bike is a bike, whether it's a carbon road bike or a pub bike.

pangolin

Would you rock up at a garage with your car and assume they'll take it in?

Still rude though.

rick_chasey

pangolin said:

Would you rock up at a garage with your car and assume they'll take it in?

Still rude though.

Erm, I call mine ahead but they're always helpful tbh, and can usually do the next day. I'm only asking for a new chain, cassette fitting & indexing and brake cables. It's hardly onerous.

It's more, I often find with independent bike shops they're really not interested in my custom.

Have had various other instances - left my bike with one in fulham - he took so long to do it that I actually agreed to pick it up, do the club run, and drop it back with him - he then complained the bike wasn't clean and wanted to charge me more for it!

It's only really with the chains that they go "yes of course I can help, here is the solution" and they actually make an effort.

Which is odd as there's not as much in it for them.

First.Aspect

pangolin said:

Would you rock up at a garage with your car and assume they'll take it in?

Still rude though.

The ones near me either take bookings about a month in advance, or don't take bookings at all. So pot luck whether they tell you they can take it and get it done by this time next year, or don't take it at all.

So not like a garage.

RC have you tried any of the mobile bike repair people? They are popping up more frequently now and it might beat your lbs experience.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

pangolin said:

Would you rock up at a garage with your car and assume they'll take it in?

Still rude though.

The ones near me either take bookings about a month in advance, or don't take bookings at all. So pot luck whether they tell you they can take it and get it done by this time next year, or don't take it at all.

So not like a garage.

RC have you tried any of the mobile bike repair people? They are popping up more frequently now and it might beat your lbs experience.

I'll see how this "stack-em-high-sell-em-cheap" shop does. If they're good I may just buy the parts myself in future and get them to fit them when I need them.

I just don't get it. Who are they giving service to? I ought to be a pretty good customer. I ride a lot and I don't like fannying around with my bike myself very much.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

Independent bike shops ffs.

I turn up with my bike as I need a few things done to it.

Me: “so I’m looking to get a few thi”

Bike shop man: “let me stop you there. You’ve come here on a Friday lunch expecting any work done on a bike. Well it’s far too late, I don’t do services on Saturdays and I’m going on holiday so come back in 9 days”

Me: “could I at least say what I need doing?”

Him: “absolutely no point. See ya”


🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

Man I miss the Cullum Street Evans. Guys in there were so reliable and efficient.

Bike shop that I used to go to had a permanent one-week waiting list. Weirdly, I stopped using them. Now go to one just round the corner, and they apologise if they can't do it within a day.

shirley_basso

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

pangolin said:

Would you rock up at a garage with your car and assume they'll take it in?

Still rude though.

The ones near me either take bookings about a month in advance, or don't take bookings at all. So pot luck whether they tell you they can take it and get it done by this time next year, or don't take it at all.

So not like a garage.

RC have you tried any of the mobile bike repair people? They are popping up more frequently now and it might beat your lbs experience.

I'll see how this "stack-em-high-sell-em-cheap" shop does. If they're good I may just buy the parts myself in future and get them to fit them when I need them.

I just don't get it. Who are they giving service to? I ought to be a pretty good customer. I ride a lot and I don't like fannying around with my bike myself very much.

The ones on mill road are pretty good. The guy next to the barber is efficient (with the aero merida in the window).

rick_chasey

shirley_basso said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

pangolin said:

Would you rock up at a garage with your car and assume they'll take it in?

Still rude though.

The ones near me either take bookings about a month in advance, or don't take bookings at all. So pot luck whether they tell you they can take it and get it done by this time next year, or don't take it at all.

So not like a garage.

RC have you tried any of the mobile bike repair people? They are popping up more frequently now and it might beat your lbs experience.

I'll see how this "stack-em-high-sell-em-cheap" shop does. If they're good I may just buy the parts myself in future and get them to fit them when I need them.

I just don't get it. Who are they giving service to? I ought to be a pretty good customer. I ride a lot and I don't like fannying around with my bike myself very much.

The ones on mill road are pretty good. The guy next to the barber is efficient (with the aero merida in the window).

Will try them next time.

Tashman

Guy I use in my village is great. He picks up and drops off when convenient, all pre-booked, but will also help out off the cuff if you ask nicely.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

Would you rock up at a garage with your car and assume they'll take it in?

Still rude though.

Erm, I call mine ahead but they're always helpful tbh, and can usually do the next day. I'm only asking for a new chain, cassette fitting & indexing and brake cables. It's hardly onerous.

It's more, I often find with independent bike shops they're really not interested in my custom.

Have had various other instances - left my bike with one in fulham - he took so long to do it that I actually agreed to pick it up, do the club run, and drop it back with him - he then complained the bike wasn't clean and wanted to charge me more for it!

It's only really with the chains that they go "yes of course I can help, here is the solution" and they actually make an effort.

Which is odd as there's not as much in it for them.

I never use to have a better experience at chains. Always required booking in weeks in advance, then all the faff of dropping it off and picking it up.

As a result, I started doing it myself. I don't like it, but it is quicker and mostly more reliable. Plus it saves money which can go on a few tools.

webboo

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

pangolin said:

Would you rock up at a garage with your car and assume they'll take it in?

Still rude though.

The ones near me either take bookings about a month in advance, or don't take bookings at all. So pot luck whether they tell you they can take it and get it done by this time next year, or don't take it at all.

So not like a garage.

RC have you tried any of the mobile bike repair people? They are popping up more frequently now and it might beat your lbs experience.

I'll see how this "stack-em-high-sell-em-cheap" shop does. If they're good I may just buy the parts myself in future and get them to fit them when I need them.

I just don't get it. Who are they giving service to? I ought to be a pretty good customer. I ride a lot and I don't like fannying around with my bike myself very much.

“ I ride a lot “ That’s a joke then.
It’s strange how nobody seems to want your custom.

Pross

The work might not have been onerous but if the guy already had several bikes he needed to work on and get finished before going away then saying no to one more might be what he needed to do. Likewise, not committing to doing repairs on a Saturday because he knows he'll be constantly interrupted by sales based on experience might make sense.

Even in my line of work I have to regularly tell people that I can't fit it their quick job as I have a backlog and squeezing them in will delay those jobs.

rick_chasey

Tbh he had no idea what my expectations were re timing as he didn’t let me finish my first sentence.

I wasn’t expecting it done today. I was actually going in to ask and on the off chance he could do it today or tomorrow I’d have left it

morstar

rick_chasey said:

Tbh he had no idea what my expectations were re timing as he didn’t let me finish my first sentence.

I wasn’t expecting it done today. I was actually going in to ask and on the off chance he could do it today or tomorrow I’d have left it

It as Pross says, if you know you don’t have any capacity beyond what you are already committed to, it makes 0 difference, more work is more work you don’t have capacity for. 5 mins or 5 weeks is largely irrelevant.

He may have already let others down that were in his schedule due to being overbooked.

I’m sure you can imagine a situation where you explain everything and he then says I am not taking any work at the moment. You then ask why the fark he didn’t tell you that before you listed your needs.

But there are good and bad ways to handle the messaging. If he was rude about, fark him.

morstar

Second hand bike prices.

I’m not in the market but see several links come up in various places and inevitably scoff at expectations.

Here’s my £4K bike which has been well used for 3 years. £3.5K it does have new cables btw.
Oh, and the wheels, pedals, handlebars, cranks, saddle, paint, carbon, tyres will all be different.

Collection preferred from Aberdeen at 3:15 tomorrow or can post for £500.

Optional spare inner tube for £50.

rick_chasey

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

Tbh he had no idea what my expectations were re timing as he didn’t let me finish my first sentence.

I wasn’t expecting it done today. I was actually going in to ask and on the off chance he could do it today or tomorrow I’d have left it

It as Pross says, if you know you don’t have any capacity beyond what you are already committed to, it makes 0 difference, more work is more work you don’t have capacity for. 5 mins or 5 weeks is largely irrelevant.

He may have already let others down that were in his schedule due to being overbooked.

I’m sure you can imagine a situation where you explain everything and he then says I am not taking any work at the moment. You then ask why the fark he didn’t tell you that before you listed your needs.

But there are good and bad ways to handle the messaging. If he was rude about, fark him.

Maybe. I’d be more sympathetic if they were useful the rest of the time.

Anyway, will update on the cheapo place today.

I think I should just avoid more expensive shops as they seem too fussy about who they serve.

The vibe is always they’re *so* busy and they’re doing me a favour for working on my bike. Like I’m lucky to have their service.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry 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.

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.

You might be confusing criticism of bad management with a criticism of management per se. Not sure I know what examples you have in your mind though.

It has to be the case that an employer owns its employees IP (or as in some countries has a right to acquire it). Although oddly in the US, this isnt the case, and it is all dealt with contractually. Its is a more nuanced debate how much someone should be compensated for involvement in a patenting process- which is an additional contribution over most roles and also an additional time commitment (if done right).

It's contractually spelt out for all our employees, which probably aids clarity. If something is outside someone's job description they could quite reasonably ask for additional remuneration, notwithstanding that contracts tend to draw the job description very broadly. If involvement in a patenting process is likely to occur in a particular role, then either some sort of bonus scheme needs to be written into the contract or the employee needs to assume that it is covered within basic salary. If nobody asks for that bonus scheme within their contract, it seems unlikely that employers will offer it unless it is an employees market.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry 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.

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.

You might be confusing criticism of bad management with a criticism of management per se. Not sure I know what examples you have in your mind though.

It has to be the case that an employer owns its employees IP (or as in some countries has a right to acquire it). Although oddly in the US, this isnt the case, and it is all dealt with contractually. Its is a more nuanced debate how much someone should be compensated for involvement in a patenting process- which is an additional contribution over most roles and also an additional time commitment (if done right).

It's contractually spelt out for all our employees, which probably aids clarity. If something is outside someone's job description they could quite reasonably ask for additional remuneration, notwithstanding that contracts tend to draw the job description very broadly. If involvement in a patenting process is likely to occur in a particular role, then either some sort of bonus scheme needs to be written into the contract or the employee needs to assume that it is covered within basic salary. If nobody asks for that bonus scheme within their contract, it seems unlikely that employers will offer it unless it is an employees market.

It's more common than you think, just closer to peanuts than perhaps it could be.

Years ago I was on a course with an in house Nokia guy (remember them?) and he explained that they had a bonus for even disclosing something that could be filed as a patent application.

Unsurprisingly this meant they captured all of their IP, and a lot of junk as well.

There's not an easy answer.

Situation is better than it used to be, in that regardless of employment contract inventors are entitled to reward for inventions of 'outstanding benefit'.

Used to be that this was judged in part based on overall turnover of the company. This meant you were far more likely to be of outstanding benefit to an SME, but of course then the benefit is likely to be smaller. Next to impossible to be of outstanding benefit to a multinational though.

The bar has lowered now though, albeit there aren't many cases. The issue is how hard it is for inventors to challenge the award of a pat on the head and a sweetie, even if they know their rights.

I suspect in time we will heard numbers from vaccine inventors. AZ's obviously are university employees, so that could be hugely lucrative, depending on the license terms between AZ and Oxford Uni.

Pfizers inventors will be in the US, so all bets are off.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry 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.

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.

You might be confusing criticism of bad management with a criticism of management per se. Not sure I know what examples you have in your mind though.

It has to be the case that an employer owns its employees IP (or as in some countries has a right to acquire it). Although oddly in the US, this isnt the case, and it is all dealt with contractually. Its is a more nuanced debate how much someone should be compensated for involvement in a patenting process- which is an additional contribution over most roles and also an additional time commitment (if done right).

It's contractually spelt out for all our employees, which probably aids clarity. If something is outside someone's job description they could quite reasonably ask for additional remuneration, notwithstanding that contracts tend to draw the job description very broadly. If involvement in a patenting process is likely to occur in a particular role, then either some sort of bonus scheme needs to be written into the contract or the employee needs to assume that it is covered within basic salary. If nobody asks for that bonus scheme within their contract, it seems unlikely that employers will offer it unless it is an employees market.

It's more common than you think, just closer to peanuts than perhaps it could be.

Years ago I was on a course with an in house Nokia guy (remember them?) and he explained that they had a bonus for even disclosing something that could be filed as a patent application.

Unsurprisingly this meant they captured all of their IP, and a lot of junk as well.

There's not an easy answer.

Situation is better than it used to be, in that regardless of employment contract inventors are entitled to reward for inventions of 'outstanding benefit'.

Used to be that this was judged in part based on overall turnover of the company. This meant you were far more likely to be of outstanding benefit to an SME, but of course then the benefit is likely to be smaller. Next to impossible to be of outstanding benefit to a multinational though.

The bar has lowered now though, albeit there aren't many cases. The issue is how hard it is for inventors to challenge the award of a pat on the head and a sweetie, even if they know their rights.

I suspect in time we will heard numbers from vaccine inventors. AZ's obviously are university employees, so that could be hugely lucrative, depending on the license terms between AZ and Oxford Uni.

Pfizers inventors will be in the US, so all bets are off.

A possible solution would be for the inventors to set themselves up as independent consultants. If they are good enough, the multinationals will come to them the same way they employ other creatives for branding or marketing material (or even their new HQ building).

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry 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.

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.

You might be confusing criticism of bad management with a criticism of management per se. Not sure I know what examples you have in your mind though.

It has to be the case that an employer owns its employees IP (or as in some countries has a right to acquire it). Although oddly in the US, this isnt the case, and it is all dealt with contractually. Its is a more nuanced debate how much someone should be compensated for involvement in a patenting process- which is an additional contribution over most roles and also an additional time commitment (if done right).

It's contractually spelt out for all our employees, which probably aids clarity. If something is outside someone's job description they could quite reasonably ask for additional remuneration, notwithstanding that contracts tend to draw the job description very broadly. If involvement in a patenting process is likely to occur in a particular role, then either some sort of bonus scheme needs to be written into the contract or the employee needs to assume that it is covered within basic salary. If nobody asks for that bonus scheme within their contract, it seems unlikely that employers will offer it unless it is an employees market.

It's more common than you think, just closer to peanuts than perhaps it could be.

Years ago I was on a course with an in house Nokia guy (remember them?) and he explained that they had a bonus for even disclosing something that could be filed as a patent application.

Unsurprisingly this meant they captured all of their IP, and a lot of junk as well.

There's not an easy answer.

Situation is better than it used to be, in that regardless of employment contract inventors are entitled to reward for inventions of 'outstanding benefit'.

Used to be that this was judged in part based on overall turnover of the company. This meant you were far more likely to be of outstanding benefit to an SME, but of course then the benefit is likely to be smaller. Next to impossible to be of outstanding benefit to a multinational though.

The bar has lowered now though, albeit there aren't many cases. The issue is how hard it is for inventors to challenge the award of a pat on the head and a sweetie, even if they know their rights.

I suspect in time we will heard numbers from vaccine inventors. AZ's obviously are university employees, so that could be hugely lucrative, depending on the license terms between AZ and Oxford Uni.

Pfizers inventors will be in the US, so all bets are off.

A possible solution would be for the inventors to set themselves up as independent consultants. If they are good enough, the multinationals will come to them the same way they employ other creatives for branding or marketing material (or even their new HQ building).

Nope. Already happens in some industries. Ever heard of engineering or design consultancies? IP signed over by contract or they wouldnt be able operate. I actually have less problem with that, because it follows the money.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry 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.

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.

You might be confusing criticism of bad management with a criticism of management per se. Not sure I know what examples you have in your mind though.

It has to be the case that an employer owns its employees IP (or as in some countries has a right to acquire it). Although oddly in the US, this isnt the case, and it is all dealt with contractually. Its is a more nuanced debate how much someone should be compensated for involvement in a patenting process- which is an additional contribution over most roles and also an additional time commitment (if done right).

It's contractually spelt out for all our employees, which probably aids clarity. If something is outside someone's job description they could quite reasonably ask for additional remuneration, notwithstanding that contracts tend to draw the job description very broadly. If involvement in a patenting process is likely to occur in a particular role, then either some sort of bonus scheme needs to be written into the contract or the employee needs to assume that it is covered within basic salary. If nobody asks for that bonus scheme within their contract, it seems unlikely that employers will offer it unless it is an employees market.

It's more common than you think, just closer to peanuts than perhaps it could be.

Years ago I was on a course with an in house Nokia guy (remember them?) and he explained that they had a bonus for even disclosing something that could be filed as a patent application.

Unsurprisingly this meant they captured all of their IP, and a lot of junk as well.

There's not an easy answer.

Situation is better than it used to be, in that regardless of employment contract inventors are entitled to reward for inventions of 'outstanding benefit'.

Used to be that this was judged in part based on overall turnover of the company. This meant you were far more likely to be of outstanding benefit to an SME, but of course then the benefit is likely to be smaller. Next to impossible to be of outstanding benefit to a multinational though.

The bar has lowered now though, albeit there aren't many cases. The issue is how hard it is for inventors to challenge the award of a pat on the head and a sweetie, even if they know their rights.

I suspect in time we will heard numbers from vaccine inventors. AZ's obviously are university employees, so that could be hugely lucrative, depending on the license terms between AZ and Oxford Uni.

Pfizers inventors will be in the US, so all bets are off.

A possible solution would be for the inventors to set themselves up as independent consultants. If they are good enough, the multinationals will come to them the same way they employ other creatives for branding or marketing material (or even their new HQ building).

Nope. Already happens in some industries. Ever heard of engineering or design consultancies? IP signed over by contract or they wouldnt be able operate. I actually have less problem with that, because it follows the money.

Yes, that's what I was referring to. I think we are more or less agreeing. You're always selling the IP one way or another - in our case it's covered by copyright and we are selling a limited license to use our design but we have the occasional client who wants an open ended license - otherwise what would be the point. My point was that as an independent consultant you have (a bit) more leeway to name your price. You still get pushed around if the client has deeper pockets and better legal advice but you also have the option to walk away.