Authorship vs. Ownership - The Patent Paradox (SAND - Part 10)

Today, I want to explore a critical distinction that lies at the heart of intellectual property rights, particularly as it relates to patents: the difference between authorship and ownership.

This distinction has profound implications for recognition, commercialization rights, and ultimately, the strategic direction of any innovation-driven venture. It also raises troubling questions about current (Alternō) team's understanding of these fundamentals and their approach to what should be one of their most valuable assets.

Understanding Patent Authorship vs. Ownership

When a patent is granted, it recognizes two distinct types of rights:

✍🏻 Authorship refers to the individuals who contributed to the invention's conception and development. Authors (or inventors) are recognized for their intellectual contributions and creative work. This recognition is permanent and cannot be transferred — it's an acknowledgment of the minds behind the innovation. As an author, your name remains on the document forever, etched in the history of the internet.

💵 Ownership/Assignee status, on the other hand, determines who holds the commercial rights to the patented technology. The assignee has the legal authority to produce, sell, license, or otherwise commercialize products based on the patent. Unlike authorship, ownership can be transferred through sale, assignment, or other legal mechanisms. Many patents developed within companies list individual inventors as authors but the company itself as the assignee.

In a well-functioning innovation ecosystem, both aspects are respected and valued. Authors receive recognition for their intellectual contributions, while assignees manage the commercial application of the technology, often with arrangements that benefit both parties through employment compensation, royalties, licensing fees, or other mechanisms.

The Sand Battery Patent: Recognition Without Celebration

As I discovered on 21st May 2025, our USPTO patent for the Sand Battery technology (Patent No. 12-130-086 B1) was approved on October 29, 2024. I learned about it only through my own investigation, nearly seven months after the approval. And even until today (2nd June 2025), no one of investors or Alterno has mentioned anything about this to me unofficially and officially. Zero communication.

The patent correctly lists me among the authors, recognizing my foundational contributions to the technology's development. This authorship cannot be erased or transferred; it stands as an official acknowledgment of the intellectual work that went into creating this innovation.

Alternō is listed as the assignee, giving them the commercial rights to utilize the technology in products and services. This arrangement is standard in many corporate settings and reflects the company's role in supporting the technology's development and commercialization.

What isn't standard, however, is the company's puzzling approach to this significant milestone.

The Strategic Silence: More questions with no answers.

The approval of the Patent represent major achievements for technology companies. It validates the uniqueness and innovation of the technology, provide competitive advantages, and often serve as powerful marketing tools that demonstrate technical leadership and expertise. Most companies proudly announce patent approvals, usually took years to get approval, feature them prominently on their websites, and leverage them in investor and customer communications.

Yet, more than seven months after approval Alternō has made no public announcement about the existence of this document. It doesn't appear on their website. It hasn't been featured in press releases or social media. There has been no public acknowledgment of this significant milestone.

This silence raises profound questions:

1. If the leadership team understands the value of patents, why hide this achievement? Patent approval represents validation from one of the world's most rigorous intellectual property authorities. It's a powerful marketing and fundraising asset. The decision to keep it under wraps defies conventional business logic.
2. If they don't understand the value, what does this say about their strategic capabilities? Failing to leverage such a significant asset suggests either a concerning lack of business acumen or other motivations that merit scrutiny.
3. Who benefits from this silence? When valuable information is withheld, it's always worth asking who benefits from the information asymmetry.

The irony of this situation hasn't escaped me: while Alternō has chosen not to publicize the patent, my own writings about the Sand Battery technology have become the primary destination for those searching for information about it. A simple search for "sand battery patent" now directs curious minds to my blog and websites rather than to the company that holds the commercial rights. (You can verify this yourself: https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=sand+battery+patent)

This outcome wasn't my intention, but it speaks to a fundamental principle in the digital age: in the absence of official information, alternative narratives will fill the void. So always practise your own discernment.

👻 The Email mystery continues

Adding another layer to this puzzling situation is the continued activity of my former company email account. Despite my employment being terminated in October 2024, the email address [email protected] remains active as of today June 2025. Try sending one email to that if you don't believe me, if it bounced, let me know!!!

Standard security practices dictate that access to company systems should be promptly revoked when employment ends. The continued activity of this account raises serious questions about data security, communication integrity, and potentially, the impersonation concerns I've mentioned in previous installments.

Why would a company maintain an active email account for a former employee, especially one with whom they're engaged in legal disputes? The possibilities range from simple oversight (itself a concerning indication of operational practices) to more troubling scenarios involving the monitoring or manipulation of communications.

🐇 Down the Rabbit Hole

As I've continued to investigate and share these experiences, each answer seems to uncover more questions. What began as a straightforward innovation journey has revealed layers of complexity involving intellectual property rights, corporate governance, communication ethics, and the responsibilities of ecosystem enablers.

I don't have all the answers yet. Some aspects of this situation may only become clear through the legal proceedings that are currently underway. Others may remain mysteries, lost in private conversations and decisions to which I wasn't privy.

What I do know is that these questions matter for the broader innovation ecosystem. How we handle intellectual property, how we recognize contributions, how we communicate about achievements, and how we manage transitions all shape the environment in which future innovations will either thrive or struggle.

Time will indeed tell, as more information emerges and as the legal system works through the evidence and arguments at its own pace. Until then, I remain committed to sharing my experiences transparently to the best I could, to pursuing proper channels for resolution, and to continuing the innovation work that has been my passion throughout this journey.

The Sand Battery technology remains a breakthrough with tremendous potential for sustainable energy solutions 🫡 The patent, regardless of who holds the commercial rights, stands as validation of that potential. And my role as an author of that innovation remains an achievement that cannot be erased, regardless of corporate machinations 💪🏻

In the next installment, I'll share more about the path forward — both for the technology itself and for the broader principles of ethical innovation that this saga has brought into focus.

[To be continued in Part 11...]