5 ms·
CALIFORNIA CODES, LABOR CODE SECTION 2870-2872 " 2870 (a) Any provision in an employment agreement stating that an employee should assign any of his rights
by tankenmate 6y ago
CALIFORNIA CODES, LABOR CODE SECTION 2870-2872
"
2870 (a) Any provision in an employment agreement stating that an employee should assign any of his rights in an invention to his employer shall not apply to an invention which the employee develops totally on his time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for the inventions which:
2871 Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or anticipated research or development of the employer
2872 Result from any work done by the employee for the employer.
"
In the state of California clauses assigning _all_ IP to the employer in an employment contract are not legal, and hence unenforceable.
- tankenmate 6y agoAnd further, here is the relevant legislation in other states; Delaware 19 Del.C. s 805 Illinois 765 I.L.C.S. 1060/2 Kansas K.S.A. 44-130 Minnesota M.S.A. 181.78 North Carolina G.S. s 66-57.1 Washington RCWA 49.44.140, 150 Utah UT ST s 34-39-1, 2, 3
- lolinder 6y agoThat doesn't apply here because the work in question is on an IBM driver, so the exceptions clearly apply.
- tablespoon 6y ago> 2871 Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or anticipated research or development of the employer I don't know where this guy is based, but his IBM email address is @linux.ibm.com, so arguably his work on the Linux kernel may be conceived as "relating to the employer's business."
- fred_is_fred 6y agoOkay 49 other states?
- blaser-waffle 6y ago> 2871 Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or anticipated research or development of the employer IMO this is the gray area. Could IBM make a reasonable case that this kernel work is related to / close to / similar to what IBM is doing? Could they have learned something, even just a rejected -- but proprietary -- approach from an internal project... that kinda ends up on the kernel? I agree with the consensus that IBM is in the wrong here... but lawyers might be able to prove otherwise.