Section 118 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
§ 118. Filing by other than inventor
A person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an obligation to assign the invention may make an application for patent. A person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter may make an application for patent on behalf of and as agent for the inventor on proof of the pertinent facts and a showing that such action is appropriate to preserve the rights of the parties. If the Director grants a patent on an application filed under this section by a person other than the inventor, the patent shall be granted to the real party in interest and upon such notice to the inventor as the Director considers to be sufficient.
There’s your invent for hire provision in the patent reform legislation that’s pending (my bold in the text).
Here’s the current 118:
Whenever an inventor refuses to execute an application for patent, or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, a person to whom the inventor has assigned or agreed in writing to assign the invention or who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter justifying such action, may make application for patent on behalf of and as agent for the inventor on proof of the pertinent facts and a showing that such action is necessary to preserve the rights of the parties or to prevent irreparable damage; and the Director may grant a patent to such inventor upon such notice to him as the Director deems sufficient, and on compliance with such regulations as he prescribes.
In my heart, I don’t want invent for hire. Aside from the questions of Constitutionality (and the unwillingness on the part of the folks proposing the changes to address the concepts underlying the Constitutional position), I want all the bother and degrees of freedom and fussing and negotiation and uncertainty that comes with inventors having a say and employers and other putative assignees having to deal with it. I think the bother is good for innovation, good for research, and good for organizations that have an interest in patents. The bother is especially good for universities, where it is more like a virtue, a reminder that the business of the university is not to transmogrify research insights into banal corporate duties, nor service to the public into money-grubbing.
Meanwhile, David Boundy makes super arguments against the current “reforms”. Universities, apparently, care about Roche but don’t care about reform. Talk about being pound foolish. But, ah!, it all comes clear–the universities in seeking to emulate a certain simplification of the corporate world have made a clean break with inventors, with the idea of individual leadership, and with the notion of freedom as a vital adjunct of innovation.