Thanks for a detailed reply. I read it a few times, and still have a few follow-up comments/questions: A. [1] Defines inventions as '(a) The term "invention"

Thanks for a detailed reply. I read it a few times, and still have a few follow-up comments/questions: A. [1] Defines inventions as '(a) The term "invention" means invention or discovery.', which means the normal English meaning applies. That clearly means for example that exceptions like California section 2870 [2] do not help employees for software side-projects (since software is subject to copyrights, not necessarily inventions unless some invention is involved in the developed software). This clearly means an employment agreement could make all software belong to the employer if developed while being employed, even if the clauses applicable to inventions in [2] like "developed in employee's own time" are satisfied. And that means that people with software side-projects while being employed elsewhere most likely in a software company may be having an issue since majority sign employment contracts without reading (and are surprised when I tell them about these things). I have commonly seen employment contracts stating "any invention, whether patentable or not, ... works of authorship, whether copyrightable or not, ... developed during the course of the employment ... are a property of the employer ... with the exceptions noted California code 2870 ..." (which as I now know, does not cover software by itself). Please let me know if my understanding above is not correct. :-) B. Hardware copyrights: Hardware, as you would know, has extensive design documents and blueprints that include circuit schematics, layouts, digital logic specified in hardware description languages (just like software), all of which involve creative expression. These then result in the actual hardware embodying these design blueprints that I guess would be a "tangible medium of expression" [3]. Integrated circuit layouts for example carry a nearly verbatim copy of the layout of the design, just like a printout of the same layout would. I now understand that "functional" aspects would not be copyrightable. I am surprised to see "system" listed in [3] though, which I thought could be considered a tangible medium of expression. From a scientific standpoint, a CD-ROM for example can readily be described as a "system". So would be a piece of paper. As I am reading [3], a CD-ROM carrying a software would not be subject to copyrights if the CD-ROM could be considered to be a system. I am wondering now if there is a formal definition of that is a "system". :-) I understand the remarks you made about trademarks fully. Thanks for noting the specific details there too! C. What does "compete" with the employer mean? :-) If someone is developing an iPad app (software) while working for a company that makes enterprise software and does not have any current or anticipated line of business making mobile apps, would that be competing? I am guessing 'yes'. Now what happens if a company is making CR-ROMs for a software they sell. Would someone making music CDs and selling those be in competition? I have been guessing that if the employee's business is within the same trademark code of the employer's current or anticipated line of business, that could be considered competing. If and only if so, all computer/electronics related stuff seems to fall in the same trademark code [4], which means clear trouble for all the people having technology side-projects. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/100 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/100 [2] http://law.onecle.com/california/labor/2870.html http://law.onecle.com/california/labor/2870.html [3] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 [4] http://www.tmweb.com/trademark_classes.asp#9 http://www.tmweb.com/trademark_classes.asp#9