BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2880|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2880
Author: Committee on Judiciary
Amended: 6/21/16 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE: 10-0, 6/28/16
AYES: Hall, Berryhill, Block, Gaines, Glazer, Hill, Hueso,
Lara, McGuire, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates, Galgiani, Hernandez
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-3, 6/2/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: State intellectual property
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill requires state agencies, when entering into
a contract, to consider the guidance, policies, and procedures
developed by the Department of General Services (DGS) on
intellectual property. This bill also provides that for
contracts entered into after January 1, 2017, a state agency
must consider the intellectual property rights of both the state
and the contracting party unless the state agency prior to
execution of the contract, obtains the consent of DGS.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Provides that contracts by state agencies for services
AB 2880
Page 2
rendered to the state are, with certain exceptions, of no
effect unless and until approved by DGS.
2)Imposes various requirements with respect to contracts for
services rendered to the state.
3)Requires DGS to develop factors for state agencies to consider
in deciding whether to sell or license their intellectual
property.
4)Exempts from the Administrative Procedure Act certain actions
to maintain, develop, or prescribe processes, procedures, or
policies by DGS that are required or authorized by the
Legislature with respect to the general operations of the
department or the awarding of state contracts.
This bill:
1)Requires all state agencies to consider the processes,
procedures, or policies developed by DGS relating to
intellectual property, as provided.
2)Provides that for contracts entered into after January 1,
2017, a state agency shall consider the intellectual property
rights of both the state and the contracting party unless the
state agency prior to execution of the contract, obtains the
consent of DGS.
3)Provides that the maintenance and development of processes,
procedures, or policies in connection with DGS' duties
relating to intellectual property, as provided, shall be
exempt from California's Administrative Procedure Act, similar
to other DGS contracting rules.
Background
Intellectual property. The term "intellectual property"
describes products of the
mind, such as ideas, inventions, and creations. Unlike real
property such as land, intellectual property is intangible. As
a type of personal property, however, intellectual property is
protected by law. There are four primary types of intellectual
property: copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets.
Taken as a whole, federal, state, and common law provide
AB 2880
Page 3
intellectual property owners with an extensive legal tool bag to
protect the items they create. It is important to note that
intellectual property laws enable an owner to pursue legal
remedies against any person or entity that infringes on the
owner's rights; they do not always give the owner the right to
manufacture or produce a product. Infringement includes making
unauthorized versions of the intellectual property or using it
against the owner's wishes.
Purpose of AB 2880. According to the Assembly Judiciary
Committee, this bill stems from a trademark dispute that arose
last year between the National Park Service (the federal entity
that manages federal parks) and Delaware North (the departing
Yosemite concessioner) over the ownership of trademarks
associated with attractions and facilities in Yosemite National
Park. This trademark dispute put a spotlight on governmental
intellectual property rights, and posed the following question
for the state: does a third-party contractor who enters into a
contract with the state acquire any intellectual property rights
over products and services it creates and provides to the public
that is funded with public dollars, even after the contract
expires?
Some state agencies, including California State Parks, have
taken steps to develop policies and procedures to protect the
intellectual property rights of the state and the public.
Unfortunately, most state agencies have not established such
policies or procedures. In 2000, the State Auditor issued a
report with recommendations to the Legislature to take steps to
help state agencies manage and protect the State's intellectual
property. In 2012, the Legislature enacted AB 744 (Perez,
Chapter 463, Statutes of 2012) which requires DGS to develop
guidance to assist state agencies in managing intellectual
property. The guidance is developed by an advisory group of
attorneys from various state agencies who have expertise in
intellectual property. Nothing under the law requires a state
agency to review or even consider the guidance developed by the
advisory group. Yet, despite these efforts to protect the
intellectual property rights of the state, not all of the
recommendations suggested by the Auditor have been enacted. For
example, the State Contract Manual (SCM), a document that
provides guidance to state agencies on rules and procedures for
state contracting, does not provide guidance on how a state
AB 2880
Page 4
agency should manage its intellectual property.
This bill attempts to correct these deficiencies as follows: (1)
By enabling DGS to include the intellectual property guidelines
that it has developed in its State Contracting Manual in order
to assist state agencies manage contracts that involve
intellectual property; (2) By requiring state agencies, when
entering into a contract, to consider the guidance, policies,
and procedures developed by DGS on intellectual property; and,
(3) By requiring all state contracts to address the issue of
intellectual property rights unless DGS provides otherwise.
State Auditor's Report. In November 2000, a report by the
Bureau of State Audits on State-Owned Intellectual Property
concluded:
"[M]any state agencies are not sufficiently knowledgeable about
the intellectual property they own. Lacking adequate knowledge
of their intellectual property ownership and rights, state
agencies could fail to act against those who use the State's
intellectual property inappropriately. Inappropriate use
includes unauthorized use of state trademarks and improperly
profiting on products developed at state expense. Further . . .
state-level direction for administering intellectual property is
limited. The few state laws that address intellectual property
do so in a piecemeal fashion . . . [and] state agencies have
either no or incomplete written policies for managing their
intellectual property."
That report further noted that although more than 113,000 items
of state-owned intellectual property were identified, the state
likely owns more. Finally, the report contained several
recommendations:
The Legislature should clarify state law to specifically allow
all state agencies to own and, if necessary, formally register
intellectual property they create or otherwise acquire when it
is deemed to be in the public's best interest.
The Legislature should designate a single state agency as the
lead for developing overall policies and guidance related to
state-owned intellectual property.
Finally, the Legislature should consider whether the interest
AB 2880
Page 5
of the public is best served when the State uses standard
contract language that essentially gives contractors a free
license to use and sell intellectual property they develop for
the State.
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 744 (John Perez, Chapter 463, Statutes of 2012), among other
things, authorized DGS to carry out various powers and duties
relating to assisting a state agency in the management and
development of intellectual property developed by state
employees or with state funding.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/1/16)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/1/16)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-3, 6/2/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow,
Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos,
Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh,
Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher,
Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez,
Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin,
Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low,
Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian,
Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas,
Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond,
Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Travis Allen, Harper, Maienschein
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hadley
Prepared by:Arthur Terzakis / G.O. / (916) 651-1530
8/3/16 19:11:09
AB 2880
Page 6
**** END ****