


Inventor of Optical Storage Gets Little Reward 362
Thu Anon Coward writes "This poor guy invented optical storage (CDs, DVDs) and never made a dime. Another case of an idea before its time and cheating a man of his due. To quote the article, 'Consumers will spend billions this holiday season on CDs, DVDs and machines to record and play the ubiquitous silver discs. But the inventor of the underlying technology won't make a cent. Today, Russell does consulting from a lab in the basement of his Bellevue home to keep in the game and supplement a modest pension from Battelle.'"
a penny for your CD? (Score:5, Insightful)
its more than the RIAA would give him.
http://creativecommons.org/ (Score:2, Informative)
http://creativecommons.org/
http://www.bi
You need to ask for the adult links.
Peace.
Others had this idea around same time as well (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.cdman.com/technical/howdocdswork2.ht
According to Philips and Sony
Looks like they had problems proving they intended it for audio use though.
RTFA (Score:2, Insightful)
I might be mistaken, but when you are hired by someone - they usually pay you a salery.
Anything you create while on the clock is property of the company you work for. If I program a nifty spam cathing program while at work, even though that isn't one of my projects, that program is property of the company. But this guy was hired to research this specific idea, as well as others.
What would be t
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Did he? Sounds more like the guy got had.
What if I came by and spotted your family heirloom dinner table, told you I recognized it as a very fancy piece of furniture and that I'd pay you $40,000? (Lets assume that you have no job, and therefore need the money more than you need the table.) Then it turns out it was actually the table George Washington ate from, and that I knew it at the time, and that its actually worth several million dollars?
You'd think you had been had to
Re:RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
What if I came by and spotted your family heirloom dinner table, told you I recognized it as a very fancy piece of furniture and that I'd pay you $40,000? (Lets assume that you have no job, and therefore need the money more than you need the table.) Then it turns out it was actually the table George Washington ate from, and that I knew it at the time, and that its actually worth several million dollars?
WTF does this have to do with: "Here's $40k/year, now come up with something that will make me millions?" -- If he had invented it in his spare time, off company property, not using company resources at all, then I could see the debate. Rigth now, this just sounds like more
He was contracted to do what he did and got paid for that. Perhaps once you guys get jobs and move out of your parents basements, you will understand the business world a bit better.
This is kind of like if one of the doctors involved with research of a cancer drug came out nearing the end of the patent life of said drug saying "I made this all by myself!", when it was, in reality, a collective of many doctors.
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Interesting)
I know, i know, that would not have been super easy and guaranteed him a steady paycheck. but if you want to make the big money, you have to take the big risks. Or take very small risks over an entire lifetime, like smart people do with the stock market. Or you can do what this guy did and just work for someone else. He may not be rich, but he isn't exactly living on the street.
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Well for starters, that is a horrible analogy as according to the article, it sounds like he was doing
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
Actually it was closer to 1965 when it was invented, something you would know had you RTFA.
"And he had the ideas patented, and no matter how many expensive laywers sony and phillps had, this guy had the idea, and the patents first."
No, his employer (Battelle) had the origional patents. And Sony and Phillips did not come about till much later, and was the subject of a patent lawsuit. More interesting facts you would know had you RTFA.
Re:RTFA (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Er
The concept that a person owns an idea is as artificial as the concept that you own anything said person produces just because you pay him
Remember kids (Score:5, Insightful)
Right?
Re:Remember kids (Score:2)
Ripped off (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ripped off (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ripped off (Score:2)
Kjella
Re:Ripped off (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ripped off (Score:5, Interesting)
differences in patent law between the good
old USA and Germany.
In the USA, the employee's invention & patent
is owned by the employer.
In Germany, the employee's invention & patent
is owned by the employee.
Most US corporations require that employees
sign away all their rights to any innovation,
regardless of whether it was developed on the
job (or even job-related) or not. Even without
relinquishing such rights, the employee has
little legal recourse in American courts. In
effect, the employer owns the employee.
Considering the direction that corporate pensions
and benefits are headed in the USA, which is:
none (now 401K), and shrinking (eg. medical), the
imbalance in favor of the corporation is getting
worse. When the increase in L-1 and H1-B visas,
and the RIFs in favor of offshore outsourcing are
taken into account, the future of innovation in
the USA looks bleak. Finally, the whole issue
of software patents and the ridiculous position
adopted by the USPTO, it is apparent that the
USA's corporations are trading in their long term
financial and industry growth for potential
short term profits.
Re:Ripped off (Score:2)
and benefits are headed in the USA, which is:
none (now 401K)
Actually, the 401ks are more stable and reliable than the old pension system. Under the old pension system if the company goes belly up, you lose it. With 401ks if the company goes belly up, your 401k is still there. Also, in an age of frequent job changes, a 401k provides carryover benefit whereas the pension system had you lose your accrued benefit.
and shrinking (eg. medical)
My medical covera
Re:Ripped off (Score:3, Funny)
You sure figured me out in a hurry <rolls eyes>. As you're thinking about retraining, might I suggest an English course...
Re:Ripped off (Score:3, Insightful)
There are two problems with that. First, we didn't create enough "coding jobs" for all the people who were displaced from the other industries that we shipped overseas, and second, you make the presumption that every factory worker is capable of coding. They are not.
The blacksmiths said the same thing... Guess what, we
Re:Ripped off (Score:5, Insightful)
The do this, because even if the person *could* extend the patent, they can't, because they're not making money from the invention, so it's usually just as good to throw the money into the toilet as to renew a non-income-generating patent.
Patents protect people with money, and companies with money, don't think much of anything else. Otherwise, they'll usually just wait out a patent. It's in their interests. Spend tons of money now, or wait until the patent expires, then you can get it yourself, because the plans and ideas are then public domain.
Re:Ripped off (Score:2)
also, there is more then one company in the world.
If I had invented self-contained cartridges for bullets, I would have tried to use the gun makers against each other.
if that didn't work, I would have presented it to the military and convince them of it's benefits. Then they could start accepting bids. Now your in position to lisense your product to multiple companies.
It is not enough to invent something, toss it out on the porch and hope someone
and if he would have patented it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and if he would have patented it (Score:2, Funny)
Get a grip (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Get a grip (Score:2)
Re:Get a grip (Score:3, Informative)
The company did patent it ... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Battelle recognized Russell's creativity and gave him time and a laboratory to develop his ideas, including a far-out system that would use a laser to read digitized music. In hindsight, Battelle let Russell's patents go for a song. It licensed them to a venture capitalist who formed a public company in 1980 to market the technology. That company ran out of money in 1985, and the patents went
Good, bad, ugly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good, bad, ugly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Had he had the patent himself he wouldnt have been able to afford to file a lawsuit anyway. He'd be squashed like a bug by some large corp. His only chance would be to sell the patents to a litigation company, in which case he'd get a miniscule amount again...
Patents do not make money for inventors. They make money for lawyers and they protect monopolies and oligopolies against inventors.
Re:Good, bad, ugly... (Score:2)
why? what proof do you have this would happen? everybody says thae people get too much momney when they sue, then they say people can't sue. can't be both.
many, many people have made money from patentining there product. Many individuas have fought corps and won. man, get real.
This guy exchanged his IP rights for a regular pay check.
Justice?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Justice?? (Score:2)
I once took one of those clear spacer disks from a CD spindle and convinced a couple of the people in our office that they were a new type of CD. They thought the clear disk was the coolest thing until they tried to play it. I'd love to give them one of these and see their reaction.
TW
Simple fix (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell to the RIAA the grand total would be less then they're spend on lawyers to sue little girls each week.
Give me a break! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Simple fix (Score:5, Insightful)
Should we make special laws for everyone who makes business mistakes?
Re:Simple fix (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Simple fix (Score:2, Informative)
I believe it used to be...
4 farthings = 1 penny
12 pennies = 1 shilling
2.5 shillings = half-crown
5 shillings = crown
20 shillings = 1 pound
21 shillings = 1 guinea
Self-Gratification (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying that patents are bad, but I also think it's good that they have limits. And I still think this guy should get more recognition.
Patents (Score:2)
Trademarks and Copyrights can drive you crazy. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Trademarks and Copyrights can drive you crazy. (Score:2)
Considering he worked for a long time at Handford (In WA state), I had assumed that the "Bellevue" mentioned is the one near Seattle - a very well-to-do area. I've done no research past my assumption however.
The whole Bellevue reference reminds me of a joke, probably understandable without explanation only to those of us in the Pacific Northwest:
Seat belt inventor the same (Score:4, Insightful)
NONE of the safety concerned car manufacturers were willing to pay a dime to use seat belt, as long as they would have to pay for it. The year after the patent expired, suddenly everybody buckled up.
I am not sure which is worst, the patent system or corporate greed.
Re:Seat belt inventor the same (Score:2, Interesting)
I think it's the same story as the guy who did the "Yahoooooo" yodel as well. I could be wrong - somebody correct me if I am, please.
Re:Seat belt inventor the same (Score:2)
The patent system. At least corproate greed drives some innovation, the patent system as it sits now is mostly used to block innovation (or even perceived innovation). Usually by corporate greed.
Take the patent (armed monopoly enforcement) away and corproate greed loses a main tool in stifling innovation and advancement.
You can't take away greed; corporate or otherwise.
He is not the only one! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:He is not the only one! (Score:2)
A quote: Laser diodes built with the same technology drive the flow of information in the Internet's fibre-optical cables. They are also found in CD players, bar-code readers and laser pointers.
If Alferov and Herbert Kroemer patented their ideas, they would be billionaires.
It goes to show... (Score:5, Insightful)
What it proves is that patents protect the fist to patent, even if there's "prior art". (If "prior art" counted, then the patents should never have been awarded, as this guy had working systems prior to the "invention" by the corporations who held the patents.)
The ones with time and money are generally not the ones working their asses off doing the inventing. They can either sponge off their R&D workforce, or they can sponge off other inventors. The latter is cheaper, as they don't even have to pay wages, then.
The research for patents is expensive and time-consuming. If your next meal depends on coming up with another idea and selling it, you probably aren't going to have either time or money to spend.
Let's face it. The system is broken. Seriously broken. I don't know how best it could be fixed, but something needs to be done before it destroys the entire inventing subculture altogether.
no (Score:2)
And when someone does infringe, you go after them. If he had taken them to court when he first had the chanes, odds are you would have gotten a settlement.
"The research for patents is expensive and time-consuming. If your next meal depends on coming up with another idea and selling it, you probably aren't going to have either time or money to spend."
not nearly as bad as it was 15 years ago.
It is not expensive to file a patent, so you can get close
Slashdot swings both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me put on my "surprised" face.
Re:Slashdot swings both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing logically inconsistent about the stances given the circumstances.
Case 1: Company buys up many questionable patents for next to nothing, then hires a squadron of patent attorneys to try to extract royalties from whomever doesn't have the time/energy/money to fight them.
Opinion: Questionable patents bad - companies greedy/stupid.
Case 2: Inventor creates well-deserved patent which leads to multi-billion dollars of business for many companies and does not receive a cent of royalties, due to bad/greedy decisions by corporate management.
Opinion: Well-deserved patents good - companies greedy/stupid.
Where is this logical inconsistency again?
Inventor was the company, not the person (Score:4, Insightful)
Well we could begin with the fact that you completely misrepresent the starting conditions. Did you read the article? He did not develop the technology on his own, this was not a garage inventor. He was an employee doing research on company time on company equipment. The company, Battelle, owned his work and they got just as "screwed" as he did. Your "bad/greedy" characterization is naive. Good ideas are not enough, you need the resources to turn the ideas into products, and some good luck. A more realistic characterization was that the idea was too far ahead of its time.
Re:Slashdot swings both ways - NOT! (Score:2)
just a few generally accepted (/.) statements:
(1) basic hardware patents are cool -- and
probably far too short in duration.
Nations that engage in patenting the
application of innovation "shotgun
method" in order to cover all possible
future uses are not. (Japan comes to mind
here.)
(2) software patents, particularly as implimented
in the USA, are predominantly un-cool, and
destructive. The entire notion of "prior
art" has be
Re:Slashdot swings both ways (Score:2, Insightful)
The technical merits of his invention are irrelevant to his legal claim. The intellectual property of his works-for-hire would belong to his employer, unless he had a contract specifying otherwise, which would be extremely unlikely, and which the artic
Re:Slashdot swings both ways (Score:3, Insightful)
If this article underlines anything, it's that patents are flawed. Do you want to make money from an invention? Make sure you have the business know-how to make money by exploiting that invention.
Patents didn't work for this lad or the Wright brothers, patents work for IBM, Microsoft, Sony, Philips and the like.
Re:Slashdot swings both ways (Score:5, Interesting)
Patents most certainly DID work for them. They were some of the most litigious patent holders of the early part of this century.
Some idiot judge decided that they should be awarded a patent on the notion of powered flight, rather than a patent on their mechanism for lateral stability. The Wrights proceeded to use that ridiculously over-broad patent to run other American companies (read: inventors) out of the airplane business.
For many years, the only aircraft innovations were coming out of Europe. The Wrights were content to rest on their laurels (and their unstable and unreliable design), and attack anybody who tried to improve on the airplane as a patent infringer.
Fortunately, the Feds finally put a stop to that when they apprehended the military utility of powered flight, and saw how the state of the art was progressing overseas.
Ironically, one of the Wright's principal US competitors (Glenn Curtiss) a) built the Wrights' first motor, b) invented the layout of the airplane as we commonly know it today, and c) wound up owning the Wright aircraft company.
So, in this case, it was a happy ending. The better innovator (Curtiss) won out in the end, and the Wrights died bitter.
Re:Slashdot swings both ways (Score:2)
I always thought that the Wright brothers died in bitterness due to others running off with their 'innovations' while not being able to enforce their patents. I wasn't aware that they did that so aggresively as to stall the entire US airplane market, and actually were very successful with it.
Thanks for correcting me, next time I'll put the Wrights next to $BIGCORP instead.
Re:Slashdot swings both ways (Score:2)
Different people, different opinions.
Re:Slashdot swings both ways (Score:2)
This is a patent on the material object, not a intellecutal process. They are considered different by many, especially since one has had patents for a *long* time, the other only a few years, and in limited areas (*cough* US *cough*). Optical media date back to before software patents existed.
Logical inconsistency where? (Score:2)
If we for some reason assume there to be some kind of "patents are bad" party line on slashdot, it's certainly not out of place here. After all:
Situation A: A company is not res
Sad, understandable (Score:5, Insightful)
First -- yes, these stories are sad. But what about the flip-side? Here's a creative soul who was gainfully employed to pursue his own imagination. He was paid to be creative. The problem was his creativity wasn't bound by the context of viability
This sounds harsh, but the way I see it he got paid to dream. Monetary compensation is only one way of keeping score and from my perspective this man is richer than most.
Which begs the question -- did he lose salary for every failed invention? He probably had a lot of hair-brained flops in his tenure
Re:Sad, understandable (Score:2)
The system isn't set up so much to reward people for ideas as much as it is to entice companies to pay the salaries of people like this. And that's as it should be - otherwise he might be working at the local hardware store.
Double standard (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Double standard (Score:2)
Re:Double standard (Score:2)
You will care if the bean-counter is the one that owns the patents, as was the case in the story. He wasn't "too chickenshit to sue", as you so brilliantly put it, but rather had no legal recourse other than to bend over and take it -- the company funded his research and thus it ended up with control of the paten
Makes you think.... (Score:2)
Re:Makes you think.... (Score:3, Informative)
and if you are an individual, the patent office must assist you through the process. but if you plan on a return on your investment, you better damn well do research and not complain about it, if you want to complain, hire someone to do the research for you and file the patent. there are means and it isn't to difficult.
Whatever. (Score:4, Informative)
That said, I didn't rtfa. But I highly doubt there's any legislative way we could have made this guy get real paid.
All the inventors got screwed (Score:3, Informative)
Another optical storage pioneer: John Dove (Score:3, Informative)
He held patents related to the CD as well. He actually got a few dollars and a early prototype Laser Disk from Phillips, not sure how much he REALLY got, not too much, as a government employee, esp when the government gave it away.
He originally developed it as a replacement for paper tapes used for test data... Paper wasn't fast enough, was hard to manage, and buffering to memory was a no-op in those days.
I once worked for the gentleman: Great fellow.
Philips Research Laboratories (Score:2)
give this man a reward/award (Score:2)
If the
... never made a dime ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, as an employee of Battelle I am sure he was compensated for his time working in their lab. He made whatever he negotiated as a salary.
Oh, nevermind, I fell off the corp-bashing bandwagon again. corp bad, tree good, unless the tree is a bush, then it's bad. Somebody get this guy some socialized healthcare or something!
-- greg
Not such a bad lot in life. (Score:2)
Let's be honest, this guy changed the face of computing. He knows that, now we know that. There are things better than financial reward, y'know.
Maybe he didn't make any money directly off of what he did, but neither did Jesus, Gandhi, or Linus.
If research funding and the markets had worked... (Score:2)
Never made a dime? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is that so? Was he working for free? I would assume that he was being paid for his work, and so I don't really see the problem. That he could have milked the system is really just an assumption that's built on the silly notion that every producer (especially foreign producers) will honor your patent, use the technology covered in the patent and pay fees. And we know that this is not always the case. The companies could avoid the patented technology or decide to use the technology and ta
And a nice guy too. (Score:5, Interesting)
When I heard (from someone else in the room) that he invented the CD, I was just in awe. Very cool.
He's into many other things also. He may not be rich like he deserves to be, but I can say he's living comfortably (he owns at least 2 properties that I know of) and is happy.
RIAA Target (Score:3, Funny)
Note to the humor impared: the above was intended to be humorous.
Good candidate for the Millenium Award (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3 341741 [internetnews.com]
I believe the part of the purpose of the award is to compensate those who benifitted the common good but did not make money off of it.
http://www.technologyawards.org/ [technologyawards.org]
I wonder how people get nomiated?
Tech Trivia Tidbit (Score:2, Funny)
"Back in the 1950s and early 1960s, music aficionados went to extreme lengths to get high-quality sound from records. Russell was the sort who used cactus needles on his record player; they had to be hand-sharpened after each use, but the sound was better and they wouldn't wear out albums as fast as metal needles."
That's what I'd call extreme lengths, alright.
Just bad business decision (Score:2)
Re:Moron (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Moron (Score:2, Insightful)
It's apparent that he simply doesnt care for the business aspect of his work. Thats not a bad thing because it allowed him more time to focus on more productive things.
It would be a hugle gamble in spending the time/money in battling Sony and Phillips in court.
Re:Moron (Score:2)
That way someone is doing the leg work while Jim creates.
Of course, you need a lawyer, and enough common sense not to give him more then half. Also, have an agreement thats tates he can not sell his half to anyone but Jim Russel.
Re:Moron (Score:5, Insightful)
Just fucking patent everything you invent and only after that decide what you're going to do with it.
I agree. In fact everyone should just pay and go to law school for a years so that they can easily patent things themselves, and defend their rights. Also, everyone should inherit millions so they can afford to pay a team of high priced lawyers to fight on their behalf all the time. This idiot did not only not go to law school, but he did not inherit any money. I mean what was this idiot doing trying to invent something new? That is just stupid. Everyone knows it is easier to just patent something obvious then use your lawyers to intimidate people who can't afford to pay legal fees to fight you.
Does anyone care to point out any times the patent system has helped to foster innovation or protected the little guy in the last 10 years? If you did not read the article maybe you missed the part of the article where they state the patent was owned by the lab where he worked, and then transferred to a startup after the lab could not afford to fight the big companies in court. The startup eventually won in court and did make money, but not before they laid-off the inventor of the tech they were making money on. Here's an idea that might be useful, lets make patents only available to people, not companies. That way they can protect inventors, and not be used to suck money out of people who actually innovate and make things. Then we could finally get those flying cars they have been showing in movies about the future for the last hundred years.
Re:Moron (Score:2)
Yeah, and then sweatshops in China will step in, steal the invention, undercut the price, and leave you just as poor as before. [nwsource.com]
The inventor in the first article was right about needing a large company to produce these inventions. If anything, they at least have the deep pockets available to
Patents are easy. (Score:2)
however, My grandfather used to get his ideas noterized, mail it to himself, stick it into another envolpe, sigh accros the flap and them mail that to himeslf.
Then he would go to corporation and sell his ideas.
Made some good money, and used that to prove prior art on one occasion.
Re:Pussy geek (Score:3, Insightful)
This Russell guy is just a fucking pussy geek
An anonymous coward calls someone a pussy? Look in the mirror coward. He never had the rights, just a share in a company that did. Legally, he had little or no recourse, and at the time no lawyer would have thought it was going to make any money. Nakamura may have won his case, but not before he was making good money at another job. He also won in the Japanese court system, not the U.S. Get a clue.
Re:Moron (Score:2)
Moll.
Re:Moron (Score:3, Insightful)
This is determined on an article by article basis here on Slashdot.
Entertainment industry IP - BAD
Software Industry - Two categories
Open Source IP - GOOD
Closed Source IP - BAD
Confused? Don't be. Just apply this simple formula:
My IP - GOOD
Your IP - BAD
Above all, remain blind to to conflicts created by your positions.
Re:Uhh consulting while on a pension? (Score:3, Informative)
Not at all. Heck I know a guy right now who collects two pensions, both from the US government! (One from when he retired after 20 years in the Marines and the other when he retired again 20 years later from the USPS). It took him a little legal wrangling when they tried to stiff him awhile back but he won in court.
And that's the USG! If his pension is private sector then it's even more legit...
Re:Uhh consulting while on a pension? (Score:2)
the kicker is (Score:2)
or worse, when they take an 'early retirement' and do it.
Edison? He didnt invent the lightbulb. (Score:5, Insightful)
When you look close at the history of technology, as an American you might find out how much hyperbole there is in the idea that "Amercans invented almost everything." The truth is more like we claimed credit for everything.
Re:Edison? He didnt invent the lightbulb. (Score:2)
When people say "Edison invented the light bulb", they mean "invented the oxygen-free sealed glass globe with an incandescent filament inside". I think we can all agree that unless there's a filament surrounded by oxygen-free space contained in a translucent container, it ain't a light bulb. Let's take a look at the very page to which you link. First, the page is in error (or at le
Re:Edison? He didnt invent the lightbulb. (Score:3, Insightful)
Even on that definition Edison didn't invent the light bulb. Joseph Swan [huji.ac.il] did.
So now we finally have a light bulb. Invented by Edison. In the US.
Nope. So we finally have a light bulb. Invented by Swan. In Britain.
It was never the light bulb alone (Score:2)
Think about what is required to generate and distribute electric power on a commercial scale, about what is needed to make electric power safe for use in the home, in business, in industry.
You need to design and set standards for power stations, overhead lines, household wiring, insulation, fuses, plugs, sockets and switches, relays, motors and god alone knows how much else.
Remember it all has to work with the materials and manufacturing techniques avai
Re:DOS (Score:2)
Re:Sorry, no injustice here (NOT !) (Score:2)
work (at least in the USA). If you invent some-
thing while working for your employer, then it
is owned by the employer. However, many/most
USA companies that hire you to be creative also
expect that anything you work on on your own
time also belongs to them, regardless of whether
the innovation/invention is work-related or not.
Also, when you decide to leave the employ of that
company (by choice or not), they might still own
any innovation/invention of yours for 1 y