|
|
|
|
|
|
by cpwright
4375 days ago
|
|
|
She signed the patent royalties over to DuPont, but that is the deal that she made. There is at least an equal chance that she never would have created this material (there are scores of other men and women who have worked for DuPont, but not an equal number of such incredible breakthroughs). She traded away the ability to hit a home run for lower variance in compensation. She collected a salary, and I would hope that she indirectly financially benefited from potential promotions or raises. Also, without the resources of DuPont she never would have been able to create this material. It is a great invention, and she is certainly a great inventor; but just because she didn't become fabulously wealthy doesn't mean she was treated poorly. |
|
|
Irrelevant. The need for capital doesn't inherently justify capital receiving ~100% of the proceeds. Her work was also a necessary part of creating the product.
> She collected a salary, and I would hope that she indirectly financially benefited from potential promotions or raises.
I don't think you understand how bad chemists have it. The guy who invented lipitor ($120 billion in revenue) was unceremoniously laid off from Pfizer for his trouble. He didn't get a penny on top of his salary -- a salary that half of the readers of this post probably wouldn't accept for a software development position.
> just because she didn't become fabulously wealthy doesn't mean she was treated poorly
No, but the labor force of industrial chemists is generally a heavily deleveraged group. There's an oversupply of them and they absolutely require intensive capital resources for success. That means they get systematically shafted at the bargaining table. They are treated poorly regardless of whether or not this individual incident is sufficient to prove it.
Due to the fact that software development has tiny capital requirements and that there are many industrial positions available for software engineers, we are able to negotiate much more reasonable terms of employment (i.e. capture a comparatively respectable fraction of the value we create). We have it good. Unusually good. It's important to remember that this is not because markets operate that way in general. It's a happy accident that has turned out well for us so far. Nothing more, nothing less. The very least we can do is refrain from victim-blaming in industries where labor is not blessed with the same happy accident.