3 ms·

all of our employment agreements in CA must include this notice (besides, we'd never claim ownership over what someone does on their own time): Exhibit B CALI

all of our employment agreements in CA must include this notice (besides, we'd never claim ownership over what someone does on their own time): Exhibit B CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE 2870 NOTICE: California Labor Code Section 2870 provides as follows: Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either: (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 (2) result from any work performed by the employee for the employer. To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under California Labor Code Section2870(a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.

bradleyjg 13y ago
That looks like it relates exclusively to patents (given the invention language). In any event, California law doesn't govern employment contracts / quasi-contracts entered into in another state. If you were to 'trial' an employee who had signed a copyright assignment agreement with his current employer in a state where such agreements are enforceable, the prior employer would have a colorable argument that it owned any code written during that week.* If the employee had signed an agreement containing an "anti-moonlighting" provision, again in a state where such provisions are enforceable, the prior employer would have a cause of action against the employee for breach of contract and possibly against your company for tortious interference with a contract. As I say in the sibling comment, I really think you should talk to your lawyer about this, particularly since the policy is now been subject to a fair amount of publicity that a disgruntled ex-employer might reasonably come across. Although I don't like your hiring policy, I have nothing against your company and would hate to read in a few months that you are bogged down in litigation. *Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright actions, but will apply substantive state law in interpreting and applying contracts. Which state's laws can be complicated, but the most likely one is where the employment took place.

bradleyjg 13y ago

That looks like it relates exclusively to patents (given the invention language). In any event, California law doesn't govern employment contracts / quasi-contracts entered into in another state. If you were to 'trial' an employee who had signed a copyright assignment agreement with his current employer in a state where such agreements are enforceable, the prior employer would have a colorable argument that it owned any code written during that week.* If the employee had signed an agreement containing an "anti-moonlighting" provision, again in a state where such provisions are enforceable, the prior employer would have a cause of action against the employee for breach of contract and possibly against your company for tortious interference with a contract. As I say in the sibling comment, I really think you should talk to your lawyer about this, particularly since the policy is now been subject to a fair amount of publicity that a disgruntled ex-employer might reasonably come across. Although I don't like your hiring policy, I have nothing against your company and would hate to read in a few months that you are bogged down in litigation. *Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright actions, but will apply substantive state law in interpreting and applying contracts. Which state's laws can be complicated, but the most likely one is where the employment took place.