Original application: I invented A, B, C, D, E, and F and want A protected; here’s some $. Follow-up application 1: I want invention B protected, here’s some more $. Follow up application 2: I want C protected, here’s some more $.

Part of the idea behind it is that you don’t have to waste money protecting parts of what you invented that don’t pan out (additional claims cost additional money beyond a certain number of claims). It’s not particularly fair, since you can watch what a competitor does (as Nintendo has done here), and essentially backdate a patent as though you had filed for it before the competitor did their thing.

The issue here is that the artists are making broad claims that DeviantArt infringed all of their works (by letting them be used as training data), even though they didn't register all of their works. Only some of the artists that are suing registered their works, and they may not have registered all of the works they are suing over. That's what the first sentence in the next paragraph is about: "[E]ven if plaintiffs narrow their allegations to limit them to Output Images that draw upon Training Images based upon copyrighted images..." The judge didn't misspeak here.

A week later, the HR person called back and said the hiring manager was concerned by how long it had been since I was a developer. That's what I expected would be the problem, so I changed strategies. I decided to get my foot in the door and work my way back up to the level I was at before I went to law school. That worked and I got a job that paid way less than my attorney salary and about 25% less than I was making as a developer at my last position (not accounting for inflation). I've enjoyed the job enough that I put "working my back up" on hold.

I don't know your situation and how big a pay cut you're willing to take, but that worked for me. Don't get discouraged, it's definitely possible. I'm "caught up" in my tech stack and feel comfortable enough to interview elsewhere, but I don't want to right now.

There’s a large body of law built up around the First Amendment rights of university professors and public employees more generally. The fact the government is an employer in some cases doesn’t override the fact that it’s still the government and largely prohibited from regulating speech except in narrow circumstances where the First Amendment doesn’t offer protections to anyone (libel, obscenity, and a few other historical exceptions) or where the speech would significantly impact the workplace or learning environment. The latter isn’t a specific test used by the courts, but that’s essentially the spirit of the case law surrounding when the government can regulate the otherwise-protected speech of its employees. For private universities, contracts or even contractual expectations created by policies regarding free speech and academic freedom (like Mayo’s policy) can place similar restrictions on the university being able to act against an employee.

While it may seem like a generic term, it’s likely not generic as far as trademarks go.

A press release from October 2021: https://news.vrtx.com/press-release/vertex-announces-positiv...

Ideally, the IP agreement with the employer is limited in scope so that the only IP assigned is that which relates to the employer’s products (e.g., a company that develops medical records software might not claim IP rights to a game the employee develops on the weekend). Unfortunately, many employers use overly-broad agreements, so it’s important to review the agreement. Even if the agreement is broad, the employer may be willing to amend it if the employee is working on something unrelated to the employer’s business and the work won’t affect the employee’s performance. Talk to an attorney in your state before you do anything that jeopardizes something of value to you, and definitely talk to an attorney before you concoct a scheme that opens you up to legal problems ;-)

Source: Attorney / software developer.