BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 2880


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  May 4, 2016


                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS


                               Lorena Gonzalez, Chair


          AB  
          2880 (Committee on Judiciary) - As Amended March 15, 2016


           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Policy       |Judiciary                      |Vote:|9 - 0        |
          |Committee:   |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


          Urgency:  No  State Mandated Local Program:  NoReimbursable:  No


          SUMMARY:


          This bill enhances the state's existing rules, processes, and  
          procedures related to state-funded intellectual property and  
          provides additional guidance to state agencies to manage and  
          protect the state's intellectual property. Specifically, this  








                                                                    AB 2880


                                                                    Page  2





          bill:  


          1)Requires the Department of General Services (DGS), when  
            developing factors for state agencies that decide to sell or  
            license intellectual property, to include considerations of  
            the state's best interest, maintaining public access, and the  
            discouragement of unauthorized economic gain. 


          2)Provides that state contracts entered into after January 1,  
            2017:


             a)   Shall not waive the state's intellectual property rights  
               unless the state agency, prior to execution of the  
               contract, obtains the consent of DGS to the waiver, and 


             b)   An attempted waiver of the state's intellectual property  
               rights by a state agency that violates (2)(a) shall be  
               deemed void as against public policy.


          1)Provides that a public entity may own, license, and if it  
            deems it appropriate, formally register intellectual property  
            it creates or otherwise requires, and provides that a public  
            entity's intellectual property right shall not preclude the  
            public entity from disclosing any information otherwise  
            accessible under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).  


          FISCAL EFFECT:


          1)DGS leads the state's Intellectual Property Work Group, which  
            is developing policies, procedures, and processes to implement  
            existing law regarding intellectual property. The incremental  
            workload associated with implementing this bill will therefore  








                                                                    AB 2880


                                                                    Page  3





            be minor and absorbable.


          2)DGS's costs to review proposed agency contract provisions  
            waiving intellectual property rights would be reimbursed by  
            the contracting agency. These costs should not be significant  
            for any single agency.


          COMMENTS:


          Background and Purpose. The recent, well-publicized Yosemite  
          National Park trademark dispute not only put a spotlight on the  
          federal government's intellectual property rights, but also  
          raised questions about the State of California's intellectual  
          property rights, as well; specifically as to whether a  
          third-party contractor who enters into a contract with the state  
          acquires any intellectual property rights over products and  
          services a contractor creates and provides to the public that is  
          funded with public dollars, even after the contract expires.


          This bill is the result of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary's  
          review of the state's existing statutory framework regarding  
          management of intellectual property, and the committee's  
          conclusion that improvements were warranted.


          This bill does the following: (1) clarifies existing law that  
          public agencies may own, license, and register intellectual  
          property, and provides that such intellectual property is still  
          accessible under the California Public Records Act; (2) provides  
          policy guidance to DGS on factors state agencies should consider  
          when deciding whether to sell or license state-owned  
          intellectual property; (3) enables DGS to include guidelines in  
          its State Contracting Manual on how state agencies should manage  
          its intellectual property; (4) requires state agencies, when  
          entering into a contract, to consider the guidance, policies,  








                                                                    AB 2880


                                                                    Page  4





          and procedures developed by DGS on intellectual property; and  
          (5) prohibits a state contract that waives the state's  
          intellectual property unless DGS has consented to the waiver.


          Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)  
          319-2081