This provision is implemented in our society, it is not valid when estimating LABOUR inventor.
If two turner vytochili same identical parts of the same quality, they receive the same basic salary regardless of cSt at which company they work. But if the same two turner made the same suggestions for improvements that reduce the consumption of scarce material in the manufacture of similar parts, the following.
One turner, working at an engineering plant, proposed in the gears of the middle part of the stainless steel in cast iron, the second turner, worked in a factory abrasives are also offered to perform the middle part of the cast, but the gears, and the abrasive wheel of synthetic diamonds. Both have spent the same amount of intellectual work and, in fact, both should receive the same remuneration. But the evaluation in accordance with the existing provisions on inventions made not by the quantity of labor expended in solving technical problems, and a completely different, as a rule, independent of the inventor criterion — economic efficiency, and the turner working on mechanical plant, whose proposal would save 100 kg of stainless steel, receive for its offer, at best, ten rubles, and turner factory abrasives for savings of 100 kg of synthetic diamonds — hundreds and even thousands He will receive higher remuneration because the work at another plant.
But at the same plant, and even more work you can get a lower payment or not get it at all.
Example. In plant manufacturing radio parts, created two inventions. One (called the proposal a) to reduce the thickness of the silver coating on let hundreds of millions of pieces of products (resistors, capacitors, etc.) Without significant changes in technology. The second (Proposition B) allows you to create a fundamentally new product (resistor, capacitor, or the like.) With a high performance and capabilities required for their release radical change the entire production.
It is clear that the creation of Proposition A, and require less time and less work than the creation of Proposition B,
And to trace the fate of inventions and inventors. Proposition A is not difficult to implement, and it promises significant economic benefits. Proposal B — complex technical solution requires capital expenditures, restructuring of production, everything that is connected with the release of new products, and in addition (which, perhaps most importantly), does not promise in the near future a significant economic effect. Proposition A will be implemented quickly, reward, and pretty decent, will be paid to the author, without difficulty, to promote the implementation (although assistance in view of the simplicity of the technical solution was negligible) will get their 35 percent premium (absolute size is fully determined by the amount of economic benefit, not the number labor expended promote). In addition, as the economic effect of the introduction of the invention it is significant that in all reports and summaries, inventor of Proposition A will be titled the author of a large invention. And the fate of the author’s Proposition B will be similar to the fate of those inventors whose purgatories described repeatedly.
But imagine a happy occasion — a proposal for the introduction of B is accepted. As a new product, it is widely applied only after the approbation of the consumer and the consumer use in new devices. The first three or four years will be produced small batches, and the full economic effect occurs when the expire five years for which compensation is paid. Therefore, the author of Proposition B will receive a small reward, and 35 per cent, due for assistance would amount does not correspond to work of people involved the introduction of a new and truly desired product. By the way, the author of Proposition B would be stripped of the title of the author of a large invention since the invention of the economy that emerged after five years, does not appear in any records, that is formally missing.
It seems enough. The current estimate of the economic effect of the invention, not only is far from perfect, but also contrary to Art. 40 of the Constitution of the USSR.
So, the economic effect is, perhaps, the only criterion for the activities of the inventor and sole criterion for evaluating its inventive contribution to the development of our society. But it’s not so bad. Judging by the article A. Kiselyov «Notes expert» (TS, 12, 78), the fact of recognition of the proposal in the invention, it is a certain dependence on the amount of economic benefit, which generally have a solution, to put it mildly, absurd.
No one objected to the fact that the economic benefits — it’s good. But for all his goodness, he is not the only criterion for evaluating the work of the inventor.
The current situation assessment work of inventors and innovators requires a radical revision.
Before sending the article to the editor with the contents were briefed some members of our team. Their opinion was particularly important also because of our relatively young (20 years) and few (400 pers.) Team received more than 300 copyright certificates and 20 distinguished inventors of the republic are working or have worked in our team, then there is the opinion of people, quite sophisticated in inventive work. Comrades, have endorsed the notice — to subvert easy, and what to offer in return?
X K HK2H HK3HK4. For example, the ratio reached a positive effect Ki equals one if the invention improves only some minor technical characteristics of the object, but the same ratio will increase to five times, if the result of the invention, the new products received first mastered by our industry. Six times may increase rate K3, taking into account the complexity of the technical challenges. Four times can increase the reward factor K4 if the invention will pioneer (having no prototype). It is clear that our fictional inventors-turners in such circumstances would have received the same award.
The most radical, simple and expedient, in my opinion, it would be the following. Simultaneously with the decision to grant the copyright certificate Inventions Committee assesses the actual value of the invention in accordance with a specially designed new position, built on the principle of operating instructions mentioned earlier. Simultaneously with the issuance of the certificate of copyright the author is paid a fee. That’s all. Of course, this proposal will meet many objections, but it is fully consistent with the principle of equal pay for equal work and the situation of payment of any creative work, in which the fee for work shall be paid simultaneously with the termination of work of the author after its publication, which is similar to the production of a description to the author’s testimony .
But what about the economic effect of implementation capacity, etc..? All these indicators can and should be taken into account, but either through moral incentives, or by a minor surcharge to the basic remuneration, say, five — ten years after the introduction.
I do not consider their arguments and assumptions unchallenged, but certainly — the inventors, like all other categories of workers generally should be rewarded for the quality and quantity of their work, not for the amount of implementation, and other factors (for example, the cost of the replaced as a result of the invention of the material), which they are not independent.
B. Schneiderman, Ph.D.