3 ms·

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 descri

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.)

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.)