2 ms·

It should be noted that many states, including CA puts limits on what can be covered by this language. Under California law, an employee cannot be required to

It should be noted that many states, including CA puts limits on what can be covered by this language. Under California law, an employee cannot be required to assign any of his or her rights in an invention he or she develops “entirely on his or her own time without using the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information” There are exceptions, see the whole article. This case even if in CA may be marred by the "Trade Secrets" restriction. http://www.intellectualpropertylawfirms.com/resources/intellectual-property/patents/is-your-pre-inve http://www.intellectualpropertylawfirms.com/resources/intell...

greggman 13y ago
The next line from your clip seems really relevant to this topic when the invention was conceived or “reduced to practice” (actually created or a patent application filed) it related to the employer’s business or actual or “demonstrably anticipated” research or development, or... In other words, if it's related to the employer's business it belongs to them. What's related and what is not is up to a judge to decide. There's arguably a spectrum of directly related, somewhat related, tangentially related, unrelated, etc.. Seems like the OP's project though is in the directly related side of the spectrum.
Silhouette 13y ago
One of those exceptions is potentially rather significant here, though. From immediately after the part you quoted: unless: when the invention was conceived or “reduced to practice” (actually created or a patent application filed) it related to the employer’s business or actual or “demonstrably anticipated” research or development, That said, the article you linked to seems to be about patents covering inventions rather than copyright covering creative works, so without reading more about the laws in those states I don't know whether any of this is actually relevant in this case.

greggman 13y ago

The next line from your clip seems really relevant to this topic when the invention was conceived or “reduced to practice” (actually created or a patent application filed) it related to the employer’s business or actual or “demonstrably anticipated” research or development, or... In other words, if it's related to the employer's business it belongs to them. What's related and what is not is up to a judge to decide. There's arguably a spectrum of directly related, somewhat related, tangentially related, unrelated, etc.. Seems like the OP's project though is in the directly related side of the spectrum.

Silhouette 13y ago

One of those exceptions is potentially rather significant here, though. From immediately after the part you quoted: unless: when the invention was conceived or “reduced to practice” (actually created or a patent application filed) it related to the employer’s business or actual or “demonstrably anticipated” research or development, That said, the article you linked to seems to be about patents covering inventions rather than copyright covering creative works, so without reading more about the laws in those states I don't know whether any of this is actually relevant in this case.