[diegomcfly]

1. No. Assumption being that any thing "invented" while working for IBM, belongs to IBM. The developer does not "own" it. He/she is only listed as basically the "(co)-inventer". He cannot go to Google and "use" it with out licensing / agreement from IBM. Now .. it is plausible that an employee invented something totally on their own time while an employee of IBM. That said, if this had any value (now or in the future), it is entirely likely and plausible that IBM could make a case legally for having rights to said invention. This is especially true if your "invention" is in the same domain you work in for IBM (e.g. if you are a middleware developer for IBM Software Group and you make a new type of messaging technology .. on "your own time" in the evening/weekends).

2. This is a grey area that will ALWAYS be open to legal interpretation (enter the lawyers). There are different things involved in your question: Are there non-competes in your employment contracts?, are they actually enforceable legally?, will they be enforced legally?, what specifically is the "technology"? So .. this is not possible to answer beyond just saying: It depends. It is case-by-case and is balance between an business' intellectual property, any contractual agreements (non-compete) you may have signed, and your right to work / find gainful employment.

[bluedevil2k]

1. Correction on #1 - technically you "invent" whatever the patent is, and then assign its rights over to IBM, whereby the compensate you. That's why the inventors' names are on the patent.

[_delirium]

The reason for that is that under the prevailing caselaw, companies can't be "inventors" of things, and therefore they don't fit under the clause of the U.S. Constitution that authorizes patents, which specifically mentions securing exclusive rights to an invention to its "inventor". Hence the legal dance where the inventors (specific humans who invented something) are named in the patent, but then they assign their exclusive right to the invention to another legal entity (their employer).

I think that might be a bit of a historical anomaly, though, related to when different doctrines were developed. Nowadays legal personhood is personhood-enough for most areas of law. One could imagine a court in 2014, looking at this issue for the first time, deciding that when a company puts a bunch of R&D money into something, and an invention results, through the actions of perhaps dozens of people working within the company's structures and facilities, it is in effect the company as an aggregate entity that has invented the invention. That might even fit a bit better (though still imperfectly) with modern scientific/historical understanding of invention, which generally views single-person "eureka!" moments as the exception, and collaborative efforts where some R&D "system" can be reasonably credited with the invention as the norm.

But this particular body of law was settled back in the days when the prevailing legal fiction around corporations was a bit different, so only humans can legally invent things. Due to the common dance around assignment, it doesn't make much practical difference anyway.