BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  AB 744
                                                                  Page  1

          CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
          AB 744 (John A. Pérez)
          As Amended  August 24, 2012
          Majority vote
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |ASSEMBLY:  |65-4 |(January 30,    |SENATE: |26-9 |(August 28,    |
          |           |     |2012)           |        |     |2012)          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
            
           Original Committee Reference:    B.,P. & C.P.

          SUMMARY  :  Requires the Department of General Services (DGS) to 
          identify and provide policy guidance for state agency management 
          of intellectual property (IP) developed by state employees or with 
          state funds. 

           The Senate amendments  :  

          1)Replace all references to the Office of Intellectual Property 
            (OIP) with the DGS in relation to identifying and tracking state 
            IP. 

          2)Require the DGS to track IP generated by state employees or 
            state funding, commencing January 1, 2015, and every three years 
            thereafter. 

          3)Specify that the provisions of this bill relating to the 
            development of an IP database, plan, or agreement do not apply 
            to the use of expressive works created by non-state employees or 
            without state funding. 

          4)Specify that state-funded research contracts with the California 
            State University and the University of California shall be 
            subject to specified model contract provisions. 

          5)Create the following definitions: 

             a)   "Expressive works" to mean a play, book, magazine, 
               newspaper, musical composition, audiovisual work, radio or 
               television program, work of art, work of political or 
               newsworthy value, or an advertisement or commercial 
               announcement for any of these works, if it is fictional or 
               nonfictional entertainment, or a dramatic, literary, or 
               musical work; and, 








                                                                  AB 744
                                                                 Page  2

             b)   "State funding" to not include funding from the California 
               Film and Television Tax Credit Program. 

          6)Redefine "state funding" to also exclude any fee, tax, fine, or 
            penalty assessed, collected, or received by an air pollution 
            control district or an air quality management district, 
            including any fee, tax, fine, or penalty that is authorized by 
            the state but is not remitted to a state agency.  However, state 
            funding shall include a fee, tax, fine, or penalty that is 
            collected by an air pollution control district or an air quality 
            management district that is remitted to a state agency, such as 
            the State Air Resources Board.

          7)Make technical and clarifying changes. 

          8)Make additional legislative findings. 

           AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY  , this bill established the OIP within 
          the DGS for purposes of identifying and providing policy guidance 
          for state agency management of IP developed by state employees or 
          with state funds. 

           EXISTING LAW  permits various state agencies to enter into 
          contracts and agreements, create liabilities, and develop, own, 
          and control the use of IP developed by the state.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

          1)Up to $350,000 in 2012-13 and 2013-14 to develop legally 
            supported policies for identifying, and procedures for 
            protecting, IP.

          2)Up to $700,000 annually for 1.5 staff counsels, three associate 
            governmental program analysts, one staff services manager, one 
            executive assistant and one office technician with potentially 
            offsetting state agency workload savings.

          3)Cost split approximately 80% General Fund (GF) and 20% special 
            funds.

          4)Unknown increase in GF and special fund revenue to the extent 
            the processes formalized by this bill relating to IP result in 
            royalties to the state.

           COMMENTS  :  According to the author, "To date there is no clear 
          accounting of what IP the state owns or the types of agreements 







                                                                  AB 744
                                                                  Page  3

          state agencies have entered into.  Three reports on the issue have 
          expressed the need to establish a centralized IP tracking system.  
          This disjointed system ultimately costs the state more money.  As 
          technology continues to advance, state agencies without sufficient 
          knowledge of how to protect IP will become increasingly vulnerable 
          to unauthorized use and inability to capitalize on reduced 
          contracts costs or increasing revenue to the state.  AB 744 sets 
          up the framework to determine what IP the state owns and informs 
          state agencies of their rights and abilities to protect the 
          state's IP." 

          IP typically consists of copyrights, trademarks, patents, and 
          trade secrets.  In November 2000, the Bureau of State Audits (BSA) 
          published the report, "State-Owned IP," which found that many 
          state agencies have insufficient knowledge about IP they own and 
          incomplete written policies on managing IP.  This could result in 
          state agencies failing to act against individuals and entities 
          that inappropriately use the state's IP by profiting from products 
          developed at state expense, unauthorized use of trademarks, and 
          state patents.  BSA recommendations include developing an outreach 
          campaign informing state agencies of their rights and abilities 
          concerning IP and establishing guidelines for state agencies to 
          administer their IP.  The BSA report identified more than 113,000 
          items of state-owned IP across 125 state agencies, but estimated 
          that there were more.  

          Under this bill, OIP would be required to identify state IP, and 
          establish and periodically update guidelines for state agencies to 
          appropriately administer their IP.  These guidelines would include 
          policies about when products should be considered IP, when 
          products should be placed in the public domain, and when agencies 
          should sell or license their IP.  OIP would also be required to 
          develop an outreach campaign to help state agencies understand 
          their rights with respect to their IP and to develop sample 
          agreements to effectuate the state's rights to IP developed by 
          state employees.  

          This bill, as amended in the Senate, is consistent with Assembly 
          actions. 

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Joanna Gin / B.,P. & C.P. / (916) 
          319-3301                                               FN: 0005714











                                                                  AB 744
                                                                  Page  4