The US and UK patent systems are so completely different they shouldn't even share the name.

Please gawd, don't let the current US abomination infect our system. Alas with megacorps controlling with worldwide shots, i fear this kind of thing will quickly be written into employment contracts and this is the last we'll ever see of that.

So they hire these people to invent things and pay them a wage whether they succeed or fail. The person agrees to take on this job and does the task.

Then when the invention takes off, they get paid more money? Why?? It's the employers who put in the risk and investment to pay their wages.

If I'm working at McDonalds and I have a record day where I sell 500,000 of their burgers, can I force my employers to pay me more because I did my job well?

Here's a guy that happily trousered a million pounds+ in salary and bonuses every year, yet is prepared to fight his most valuable employees *in court* over a paltry £1.5m.

Oh, I see: he's *worth* it. On the other hand, mere "scientists" and "engineers" are clearly undeserving of such rewards.

{sigh}

"Former Glaxo chief executive Sir Richard Sykes gave evidence in the company's support, saying that inventions were a corporate effort involving teams of people."

Bull. If he can show that any contributor to the invention was not listed as an inventor, then he can invalidate the patent. The final embodiment may have been the result of a team effort, but patents are required to list all contributors.

If the company had done the decent thing and, after the patent had resulted in its first fifty million in revenue, given the inventors a bonus of 100K each, I wonder if this would ever have come up. How much bonus / commission did the sales reps get for every sale? By the time the gross revenues passed a billion, you can bet the sales reps all had new houses. The inventors? Maybe they had less trouble funding their next project. Oh, and a plaque.

"can I force my employers to pay me more because I did my job well?"

Yes, 'cos that's what patent law says.

Unlike, say, the corporate insanity which automatically rewards CEOs with millions regardless of company performance, yet chooses to fight legitimate claims like this in court.

You mean the CEOs that started, invested and worked their way up companies? People choose their jobs and know what their wage is, if they don't like it then they can feck off and get another job.

So the senior executives are worth performance bonuses, regardless of whether their performance was obviously crap, because they have worked hard to get to the top. The engineer does not deserve a bonus, even when his performance was obviously outstanding, because he didn't work hard. The way we know he didn't work hard is that he is not an executive.

So, by extension, the only reason a clever person would work as an engineer or scientist is if he likes the work more than money or recognition. Do you see any long-term problems with this policy? Have you read how companies complain they can't hire competent technical workers, although the schools keep producing graduates?

I'm not saying your opinion is out of step with standard British management. I am just saying that it goes a long way towards explaining the number of clever British scientists and engineers working abroad. If the companies that rely on hiring these people are too thick to do something about it, maybe inspired rulings like this will help them see their way clear to preventing their own eventual collapse.