Check amazon for Triumphs & Trials of an Organ Builder
As far back as the fifteenth century, man has had to deal with the consequences of obtaining specialized knowledge. In those days, master craftsmen taught apprentices a craft—this was good for both master and apprentice. The apprentice learned the craft; the master profited from the apprentice's low-cost labor. After an apprentice learned the craft from the master, he was not supposed to take advantage of the master by using the newly gained knowledge to hurt the master's business. Needless to say, not everyone played by these rules and problems arose. Courts entered into the picture and tried to determine what was fair. Eventually, the concept of legal protection of intellectual property evolved.
Realization that a modern society thrives on technological innovation has long been recognized. The invention of new or improved processes, machines, and manufactured products is good for society if the inventor discloses his discoveries to the public. This is how technological progress builds on itself. By disclosing the invention, the inventor gives everyone a head start in working on the next invention rather than having to reinvent what has already been discovered. However, to be fair, the inventor should get some reward for his contribution to society. Today, we have the concept of the "patent," patent laws, and a special government agency, the "Patent Office," set up not only to foster the dissemination of newly obtained knowledge but also to protect the owners of resulting intellectual property via the issuance of patents.
In order to receive a patent, an inventor must fully disclose his discovery to the public. In return, he is granted an exclusive right to the use of the invention for a set period of time—seventeen years in the U.S.A. This gives the inventor the right to use the courts to prevent others from using the invention—"infringing" on the invention. By this mechanism, the inventor is supposed to be able to profit fairly from his efforts before others unfairly take advantage of his sharing the knowledge about his discoveries.
The above explanation of how the patent system works is ultra-simplistic. In reality, the situation is much more complex. For example, the granting of a patent by the Patent Office can be subsequently rescinded by the court. Because of this fact and the penchant for litigation in this country, many patent matters end up in court. Unfortunately, the court may not be the best place to settle patent matters fairly. Patents deal with highly-complex technical issues which neither judges nor juries are readily able to fathom. Therefore, the judgment of patent issues by courts is wide open to manipulation by unscrupulous lawyers and witnesses.
A patent grant may be considered to be a covenant between the government (representing the public) and the inventor who, in essence, receives a "protected territory" for seventeen years. In the past, cases existed where inventors artificially tried to extend the seventeen-year monopoly period by not applying for the patent in a timely fashion. For example, if an inventor began producing and selling the product for a significant period of time before applying for the patent, he could piggyback the time during which the product was being produced and sold over and above the seventeen years from the date of the patent grant. Subsequently, the law was changed in order to limit this seventeen-year period. Now, an inventor applying for a patent must execute an oath in which, among other things, the inventor swears that the new device has neither been on sale, nor been in public use, nor been publicly disclosed prior to one year before the date of the patent application. Anyone involved with patents soon learns that this is a sacred rule which must not be broken; the penalty for breaking this rule, if detected, is invalidation of the patent by the courts.
Another factor involving patents had to be worked out over the years. Today, most technological development is funded by institutions or companies. Inventions are still conceived in the minds of real human beings. Therefore, recognizing this, the United States Patent Office only grants patents to human beings. As a result, institutions and companies cannot be named as an inventor on a patent.
In consideration for the financial backing provided by the institutions and companies in supporting the process of technological advancement, the law provides for the assignment of the rights to a patent to the supporting institution or company. Thus, scientists and engineers are hired and remunerated for inventing (and receiving patents in their own name) on behalf of their employer. In return, they sign an agreement assigning the rights to their inventions to their employer while they are employed and for some reasonable time, usually one year, after they terminate their employment. The simple idea behind this is that the employer is entitled to capitalize on the new technology funded by the institution or company. This process is supposed to establish the rules in a fair manner. For example, it would hardly be fair for an inventor to develop an idea on company time, to use company resources, and then to terminate his employment and file for a patent on the idea, thus leaving the company with nothing.
How this all relates to the story of the digital organ is reflected in chapters which follow.