Interesting case. I know by default in Sweden all patents/IP go to the employee, not the employer, but it’s definitely complicated by how old this design is.
A big issue I see here is retroactively applying the new legislation. While I do think designers absolutely should be paid extra in cases like this I also think applying it back until 2003 like Sweden is doing is already too long - it violates the principle of legal certainty. It’d be very interesting for somebody to take this up to ECJ.
Applying it back until the 90s like in this case I’d expect them to have no chance - while again I agree that this lady deserved the money it also seems she might have a legal claim to continued payments back then as the company was referring to the legal situation no longer valid when they stopped the payment it’d be way beyond statue of limitations by now.
Legally I don’t think she has a chance, morally I think the company should just do as she suggests and start that fund.
Interesting case. I know by default in Sweden all patents/IP go to the employee, not the employer, but it’s definitely complicated by how old this design is.
A big issue I see here is retroactively applying the new legislation. While I do think designers absolutely should be paid extra in cases like this I also think applying it back until 2003 like Sweden is doing is already too long - it violates the principle of legal certainty. It’d be very interesting for somebody to take this up to ECJ.
Applying it back until the 90s like in this case I’d expect them to have no chance - while again I agree that this lady deserved the money it also seems she might have a legal claim to continued payments back then as the company was referring to the legal situation no longer valid when they stopped the payment it’d be way beyond statue of limitations by now.
Legally I don’t think she has a chance, morally I think the company should just do as she suggests and start that fund.