Company Ownership of Employee Ideas

Anonymous Coward writes "Alcatel USA Inc. filed a lawsuit, and won, in a bid to claim proprietary rights for a software idea of one of its former employees, Evan Brown. Evan signed a invention disclosure agreement with his former employers but what makes this case unusual is that Evan never wrote anything down with regards to his idea, meaning that Alcatel seems to be claiming rights to an idea in his head. Does this mean your thoughts may belong to your company? Maybe...." This story has been kicking around for a few days but this is the first legal analysis I've seen of it. Watch what you sign! J adds: see also recent TR story and our 1999 story.

Comments

Solution: Move to California

[adam_megacz]

California Labor Code, section 2870 states that no matter what you signed, your employer cannot claim ownership of intellectual property which:

• you created entirely on your own time
• you created entirely with your own equiptment
• is not directly related to your employer's business, or demonstrable future business plans (ie ideas currently in development).

Re:This is a good ruling

[Paul 03244]

Basically they're claiming rights to an idea that had nothing to do with them or their business, just because someone happened to work for them somewhere along the way, and that's nothing but the rawest kind of opportunism.

From the article:

"In April 1996, Brown sought a release from DSC to pursue his idea. Brown alleges that he asked several managers at DSC whether the company would be interested in helping him develop the idea. According to Brown, DSC and Brown began negotiating an agreement whereby DSC would pay Brown a percentage of savings realized by the company if the idea was successful and a percentage of income from third-party sales, but the company later halted negotiations. Brown says when he refused to reveal his idea, DSC fired him and sued him."

Apparently Brown & his managers felt that the company could develop a commercial application. Any idea that is applicable to the employer's business(s) is fair game.

Speak your mind about IP agreements

[signe]

IEEE has an Intellectual Property Committee that researches and investigates IP laws and agreements and such. They often propose policy to the government (US, specifically).

One of the things they're working on right now is collecting information and opinions on pre-assignment agreements (these are the agreements that you're asked to sign at the start of employment, or a contract, which assign all rights to the company you're working for. I highly suggest that everyone who has a strong view go to http://ieeeusa.org/committees/IPC/ and read the information they have and make comments using the form on that page.

-Todd

Re:Welcome to the new feudalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is because NASA is a gov't organization and under US law the gov't cannot own patents or copyrights.

But I have to agree with you that having them help you file for the patent is a nice perk - much better than what a lot of places will try to do "for" you.

Re:you really think so?

[jarrell]

Some contracts are like that. Years ago, I worked for Honeywell Information Systems. They had policy HIS-14, which we liked to call the "Body and Soul" clause. Basically, if they had the remotest chance of showing that you might have thought about it during the period of time that you were on their books as an employee, it was theirs.

Except for people who worked for Honeywell Sweeden. (We had some software engineers and such there. I forget *why* we had them there, but anyway). The courts there struck HIS-14 down when it was challenged.

The reason? They pointed out that Slavery had been illegal in Sweeden for some time now.

Check out this textbook...

[jazzbazzfazz]

See: Who owns what's in your head? for a thorough overview of the topic. The short answer is that, yes, what Alcatel is claiming is really not that far out. The precedent has been established years ago.

Re:you really think so?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's quite positive that atleast the higher courts in scandinavia tend to judge through moral, fairness and logic when a company is suing private persons. In the U.S. if something has been written on paper and it has a flaw, then the courts rule by the exact wordings. In scandinavia higher courts typical judge it as a unethical and make a prescedent to fix the flaw. (My mother is a judge in the Finnish supreme court and sometimes they let people appeal, just because something seams unfair and they think the law should not be used in the way it had been used).

Same in Washington

[Hieronymous Cowherd]

RCW 49.44.140 applies in Washington state, and makes such drastic clauses nonenforceable:

Requiring assignment of employee's rights to inventions -- Conditions.
(1) A provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign or offer to assign any of the employee's rights in an invention to the employer does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, unless (a) the invention relates (i) directly to the business of the employer, or (ii) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) the invention results from any work performed by the employee for the employer. Any provision which purports to apply to such an invention is to that extent against the public policy of this state and is to that extent void and unenforceable.

This RCW, in fact, was what I quoted when giving my "list of inventions", indicating that I claimed ownership for any inventions or publications which I created in the past, present, or future, and had no intention of listing them, as they did not fall under the types of inventions or publications that were covered under the law.