"Correction welcome but anything Moore did prior to his involvement with Leckrone, employed or not, is Moore's until he decides to give or sell it."
I agree, but my post was directed to when Moore was employed at TPL which I believe is when he filed the divisionals.
"While what Moore did when with TPL may well belong to Leckrone whatever the terms of the relationship, I'd think Moore's share of the MMP is safe unless he actually did sell the ownership rights rather than just the right to license. "
I agree, but the filings are divisional, and my question echoes Mark's being what rights do PTSC have to these filings? As far as Moore's right to these divisional filings depends on if he worked on this IP while employed at TPL, and (a) TPL policy for IP development/ownership in place during Moore's employment, (b) Employment agreement between TPL/Moore detailing IP development/ownership agreement. If he was not employed by TPL or neither a,b exists, then the law states ownership belongs to Moore. Just because Moore is listed as the applicant/owner doesn't make it so if "a" or "b" above exists defining ownership of developed IP to be of the employer.
"Moore has always claimed the latter. But, then, there is always the question why Moore never questioned TPL's claim of ownership in license announcements - Moore being Moore, he probably never bothered to read those announcements."
Who knows, I don't know him but based on his blog.......let's just say I wouldn't want to bank everything on his judgement. LOL
Good luck everyone!
