6 ms·

CA Labor Code section 2870 (you don't give up IP rights to the work you did in your own time) is also vastly important.

by ww520 11y ago

skewart 11y ago
This. It's really hard to imagine SV becoming what it is today without this section in the labor laws.
- turnip1979 11y ago
  That section has a few exceptions to it. "... (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or ..." If you work for a large company in the valley, how does it affect you?I'm curious if anyone has first hand experience with it.
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    I can give you the cynical truth on it: Large employers will generally own whatever you do in your spare time. They will not mention this, and generally not care, but if you make a ton of money or do something really popular, they will start a fight. Note: "The employee bears the burden of establishing his invention comes within Labor Code section 2870. (Lab. Code, § 2872.) " See also cubic corp v. marty, which disassembles most typical arguments: "Marty argues under the Labor Code provision "the employer is not entitled to the invention unless it 'resulted from' work performed by the employee, even if the invention, in general, relates to the 'business of the employer'...."" Marty has misconstrued the Labor Code provision. <court proceeds to trash Marty's arguments> etc I have yet to see a case where an inventor wins.
    - skewart 11y ago
      That's interesting. Maybe the widespread misconception that it provides some protection emboldens people to work on projects in their spare time?
    - Pyxl101 11y ago
      What connection does Cubic v Marty have to this? From Justicia: > In mid-May 1977, Marty came up with an idea for an electronic warfare simulator (EWS), a device for training pilots in electronic warfare. He developed a block diagram in May 1977 and in June 1977 a manuscript describing his invention. He showed both the diagram and manuscript to Minton Kronkhite of Cubic, representing it might be a new product which Cubic could add to its product for training pilots, the ACMR (air combat maneuvering range). fn. 1 Cubic had had plans to add electronic warfare training to its ACMR but had not yet developed it at the time of Marty's invention. Kronkhite thought Marty's invention was a good idea and passed along the manuscript to Hubert Kohnen, another Cubic employee involved with the ACMR. The guy gets a significant raise and Cubic works with the Navy on a program to study the idea, with the idea that Marty would be program manager. The guy goes on to get a patent on the idea on his own without telling anyone. Approaches Cubic offering to sell the rights. Cubic demands the patent and fires him and she's for ownership. He tries to defend himself by saying that his job responsibility is not to invent: > Further, Marty presented his invention to Cubic as a new product for Cubic, something which could be added to their ACMR. Marty was made program manager on the government contract to study (and refine the design of) his invention. While Marty may not have been a "design" engineer at Cubic, the scope of his employment did not preclude design work and in fact, Marty perceived it as encompassing design work since he presented his invention to Cubic as a design for Cubic without expressing any reservations of rights or indications that the invention was not a part of his Cubic employment Sounds like the guy did some sketchy shit and was called on it. This is nothing like the scenarios we are talking about where an employee invents something on their own time with no connection to their company or their work. The court tore up his argument because the basis for the argument was that he was a non-inventing employee and somehow the agreement he signed didn't apply.
      - DannyBee 11y ago
        "What connection does Cubic v Marty have to this?" It's the leading case and, as i said, quoted to this day in pretty much every other case. Please ignore the facts of this case, what matters here is the courts view on what it means to be related to the business, who bears the burden of proof, etc. "This is nothing like the scenarios we are talking about where an employee invents something on their own time with no connection to their company or their work. " Define "no connection". In the hundreds of times i've had employees claim this, i can count on one hand the nubmer of times they were right factually (IE they often don't know enough about a large company to know everything that is going on, etc), and can think of only one case i think a court might agree with them. Again, feel free to find a case that supports the general view that stuff you do on your own time is yours, and employers are going to have to fight to get it. Because Cubic says the opposite - the burden is on you to prove it is something that isn't owned by your employer.
    - ScottBurson 11y ago
      I just read a summary of that case, and it doesn't even seem to me (who would generally be biased toward the inventor) that Marty had a case. He himself described his invention as potentially useful in a Cubic product. I guess the cases that wind up in litigation tend to be the ones that aren't clear-cut, and I can believe the employer usually wins those. That doesn't mean that section 2870 makes no difference. If you can show me a case where the requirements were pretty clearly met, and the court still ruled against the inventor, that will be more convincing.
      - DannyBee 11y ago
        You missed the point, which was, the court basically put all the burden and problems of proving things around 2870 on Marty. They also took a very broad view of what it means to be related to the business. You will have the same trouble. Cubic is quoted to this day for all the propositions i pointed out. As for "show me a case", i'll ask the opposite: Find me a case that supports any view of this provision that people like to have (IE that most stuff they do in their spare time is going to be owned by them). (to help: I'm not aware of any such cases, and i skimmed the headnotes for all 109 cases that cite Cubic)
        ScottBurson 11y ago
        > the court basically put all the burden and problems of proving things around 2870 on Marty Well, yes. As you quoted, the statue itself directs the court to do that. > They also took a very broad view of what it means to be related to the business. Okay, I've now read the whole opinion and nothing in it surprises me. If your point is that people tend to read secs. 2870-2 less carefully than they should, I am in no position to dispute that. I certainly agree that someone hoping to avail themselves of sec. 2870 would be well advised to be extremely careful -- even as to their choice of employer. But I think there must be employers that don't make a habit of suing former employees when it appears that there's a reasonable chance that the 2870 requirements have been more-or-less met. Lots of Google engineers leave to start startups, I have heard, and I'm sure in plenty of those cases, they had their idea while they were still Google employees. If Google started litigating such cases regularly, they would destroy their reputation as a great place to work, I would think. (I have never worked for Google, so this is just my guess.)
    - Gibbon1 11y ago
      There are probably cases where the company does not sue though. I do remember a case where a long time employee of sears designed and patented a novel and useful ratchet wrench. Hazy memory but he tried to sell it to sears. Sears instead claimed they owned it, and the court said nope.
DannyBee 11y ago
Engineers often read this section much more broadly than it is. Employees rarely win 2870 suits. Basically: Engineers tend to think it matters what they do for the company, but 2870 instead says it matters what the company does, not what you do for the company. Employers can claim stuff that "(1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or" For large tech companies, this pretty much covers everything you might want to do.
WalterBright 11y ago
Whenever I've gotten a job, I'd list on the employment contract all my outside projects and get buyoff from management that those were my projects, not the company's. Before I'd start a new outside project, I'd write it up and get management buyoff on it that it is not part of my job. The key is full disclosure, in advance. And I never had any trouble over it.
- _puk 11y ago
  This seems to be good advice. Additionally, I've found that at the point of employment projects don't need to be more than an idea; as long as you get them included with the contract, a simple abstract of what is covered is enough to give you something to play with whilst employed by said company. Oh, and make sure to include projects even if you don't deem them to conflict with the company's area of core business. IME they'll be met with a chuckle and a 'not sure why these are here', but when the company is subsequently working out how to jump on the latest buzz bandwagon your side project may suddenly fall under some random wing of interest. Far easier to get it in there early.

CA Labor Code section 2870 (you don't give up IP rights to the work you did in your own time) is also vastly important.

by ww520 11y ago

CA Labor Code section 2870 (you don't give up IP rights to the work you did in your own time) is also vastly important.

skewart 11y ago

This. It's really hard to imagine SV becoming what it is today without this section in the labor laws.

turnip1979 11y ago
That section has a few exceptions to it. "... (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or ..." If you work for a large company in the valley, how does it affect you?I'm curious if anyone has first hand experience with it.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  I can give you the cynical truth on it: Large employers will generally own whatever you do in your spare time. They will not mention this, and generally not care, but if you make a ton of money or do something really popular, they will start a fight. Note: "The employee bears the burden of establishing his invention comes within Labor Code section 2870. (Lab. Code, § 2872.) " See also cubic corp v. marty, which disassembles most typical arguments: "Marty argues under the Labor Code provision "the employer is not entitled to the invention unless it 'resulted from' work performed by the employee, even if the invention, in general, relates to the 'business of the employer'...."" Marty has misconstrued the Labor Code provision. <court proceeds to trash Marty's arguments> etc I have yet to see a case where an inventor wins.
  - skewart 11y ago
    That's interesting. Maybe the widespread misconception that it provides some protection emboldens people to work on projects in their spare time?
  - Pyxl101 11y ago
    What connection does Cubic v Marty have to this? From Justicia: > In mid-May 1977, Marty came up with an idea for an electronic warfare simulator (EWS), a device for training pilots in electronic warfare. He developed a block diagram in May 1977 and in June 1977 a manuscript describing his invention. He showed both the diagram and manuscript to Minton Kronkhite of Cubic, representing it might be a new product which Cubic could add to its product for training pilots, the ACMR (air combat maneuvering range). fn. 1 Cubic had had plans to add electronic warfare training to its ACMR but had not yet developed it at the time of Marty's invention. Kronkhite thought Marty's invention was a good idea and passed along the manuscript to Hubert Kohnen, another Cubic employee involved with the ACMR. The guy gets a significant raise and Cubic works with the Navy on a program to study the idea, with the idea that Marty would be program manager. The guy goes on to get a patent on the idea on his own without telling anyone. Approaches Cubic offering to sell the rights. Cubic demands the patent and fires him and she's for ownership. He tries to defend himself by saying that his job responsibility is not to invent: > Further, Marty presented his invention to Cubic as a new product for Cubic, something which could be added to their ACMR. Marty was made program manager on the government contract to study (and refine the design of) his invention. While Marty may not have been a "design" engineer at Cubic, the scope of his employment did not preclude design work and in fact, Marty perceived it as encompassing design work since he presented his invention to Cubic as a design for Cubic without expressing any reservations of rights or indications that the invention was not a part of his Cubic employment Sounds like the guy did some sketchy shit and was called on it. This is nothing like the scenarios we are talking about where an employee invents something on their own time with no connection to their company or their work. The court tore up his argument because the basis for the argument was that he was a non-inventing employee and somehow the agreement he signed didn't apply.
    - DannyBee 11y ago
      "What connection does Cubic v Marty have to this?" It's the leading case and, as i said, quoted to this day in pretty much every other case. Please ignore the facts of this case, what matters here is the courts view on what it means to be related to the business, who bears the burden of proof, etc. "This is nothing like the scenarios we are talking about where an employee invents something on their own time with no connection to their company or their work. " Define "no connection". In the hundreds of times i've had employees claim this, i can count on one hand the nubmer of times they were right factually (IE they often don't know enough about a large company to know everything that is going on, etc), and can think of only one case i think a court might agree with them. Again, feel free to find a case that supports the general view that stuff you do on your own time is yours, and employers are going to have to fight to get it. Because Cubic says the opposite - the burden is on you to prove it is something that isn't owned by your employer.
  - ScottBurson 11y ago
    I just read a summary of that case, and it doesn't even seem to me (who would generally be biased toward the inventor) that Marty had a case. He himself described his invention as potentially useful in a Cubic product. I guess the cases that wind up in litigation tend to be the ones that aren't clear-cut, and I can believe the employer usually wins those. That doesn't mean that section 2870 makes no difference. If you can show me a case where the requirements were pretty clearly met, and the court still ruled against the inventor, that will be more convincing.
    - DannyBee 11y ago
      You missed the point, which was, the court basically put all the burden and problems of proving things around 2870 on Marty. They also took a very broad view of what it means to be related to the business. You will have the same trouble. Cubic is quoted to this day for all the propositions i pointed out. As for "show me a case", i'll ask the opposite: Find me a case that supports any view of this provision that people like to have (IE that most stuff they do in their spare time is going to be owned by them). (to help: I'm not aware of any such cases, and i skimmed the headnotes for all 109 cases that cite Cubic)
      - ScottBurson 11y ago
        > the court basically put all the burden and problems of proving things around 2870 on Marty Well, yes. As you quoted, the statue itself directs the court to do that. > They also took a very broad view of what it means to be related to the business. Okay, I've now read the whole opinion and nothing in it surprises me. If your point is that people tend to read secs. 2870-2 less carefully than they should, I am in no position to dispute that. I certainly agree that someone hoping to avail themselves of sec. 2870 would be well advised to be extremely careful -- even as to their choice of employer. But I think there must be employers that don't make a habit of suing former employees when it appears that there's a reasonable chance that the 2870 requirements have been more-or-less met. Lots of Google engineers leave to start startups, I have heard, and I'm sure in plenty of those cases, they had their idea while they were still Google employees. If Google started litigating such cases regularly, they would destroy their reputation as a great place to work, I would think. (I have never worked for Google, so this is just my guess.)
  - Gibbon1 11y ago
    There are probably cases where the company does not sue though. I do remember a case where a long time employee of sears designed and patented a novel and useful ratchet wrench. Hazy memory but he tried to sell it to sears. Sears instead claimed they owned it, and the court said nope.

DannyBee 11y ago

Engineers often read this section much more broadly than it is. Employees rarely win 2870 suits. Basically: Engineers tend to think it matters what they do for the company, but 2870 instead says it matters what the company does, not what you do for the company. Employers can claim stuff that "(1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or" For large tech companies, this pretty much covers everything you might want to do.

WalterBright 11y ago

Whenever I've gotten a job, I'd list on the employment contract all my outside projects and get buyoff from management that those were my projects, not the company's. Before I'd start a new outside project, I'd write it up and get management buyoff on it that it is not part of my job. The key is full disclosure, in advance. And I never had any trouble over it.

_puk 11y ago
This seems to be good advice. Additionally, I've found that at the point of employment projects don't need to be more than an idea; as long as you get them included with the contract, a simple abstract of what is covered is enough to give you something to play with whilst employed by said company. Oh, and make sure to include projects even if you don't deem them to conflict with the company's area of core business. IME they'll be met with a chuckle and a 'not sure why these are here', but when the company is subsequently working out how to jump on the latest buzz bandwagon your side project may suddenly fall under some random wing of interest. Far easier to get it in there early.