BILL ANALYSIS
ACR 252
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 12, 2004
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
ACR 252 (Mullin) - As Introduced: July 8, 2004
PROPOSED CONSENT
SUBJECT : INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE REQUEST THE CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS ON
HOW CALIFORNIA SHOULD TREAT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CREATED UNDER
STATE CONTRACTS, GRANTS AND AGREEMENTS?
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial resolution, identical to AB 2319 (Mullin)
which was approved by the Committee, requests the California
Council on Science and Technology (CCST) to create a special
study group to develop recommendations on how the State should
treat intellectual property created under State contracts,
grants and agreements. Among other things, the resolution asks
CCST to consider promoting the utilization of intellectual
property arising from State supported contracts, grants and
agreements and requests CCST to work with specified entities in
completing the study.
SUMMARY : Requests CCST to create a study group regarding the
State's intellectual property. Specifically, this resolution :
1)Requests CCST to create a special study group to develop
recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature on how the
state should treat intellectual property created under state
contracts, grants, and agreements, including, among others:
a) Promoting the utilization of intellectual property
arising from state-supported contracts, grants, and
agreements.
b) Promoting collaboration between commercial concerns and
nonprofit organizations, including universities.
c) Ensuring that the intellectual property made by
nonprofit organizations and small business firms is used in
ACR 252
Page 2
a manner to promote free competition and enterprise without
unduly encumbering future research and discovery.
2)Requests CCST to work with its sustaining institutions, state
agencies, including the office of the Attorney General, and
other organizations, to complete this study, including the
Department of General Services, experts in contract and
licensing with the state and federal governments, research and
development practitioners, experts in technology transfer and
individuals representing the public interest.
EXISTING LAW provides for copyright, patent, trade secret and
trademark protection, under both Federal and State law.
FISCAL EFFECT : The resolution as currently in print is keyed
fiscal.
COMMENTS : The substantive provisions of this non-controversial
resolution are identical to provisions contained in the author's
AB 2319, which was approved by this Committee on March 23, 2004
by a vote of 9-0. The author writes that the resolution
addresses the key issue of the "[c]reation of uniformity in the
way the State addresses intellectual property (IP) made under
State contracts, grants and agreements. Additionally, this
study will address the issue of multi-party collaboration and
ownership of the IP created, as often found in the academic
setting, which incorporates funding from many sources." In
support, the author cites the following from the Bureau of State
Audits report entitled "State-Owned Intellectual Property:
Opportunities Exist for the State to Improve Administration of
Its Copyrights, Trademarks, Patents, and Trade Secrets" released
in November 2000:
Many state agencies are not sufficiently knowledgeable
about the intellectual property they own. Intellectual
property consists primarily of copyrights, trademarks,
patents, and trade secrets. Lacking adequate knowledge
of their intellectual property ownership and rights,
state agencies could fail to act against individuals
and entities that use the State's intellectual property
inappropriately. Inappropriate use includes improperly
profiting from products developed at state expense,
unauthorized use of trademarks to imply state approval,
and claiming patent rights to state-developed
inventions. The few state laws that address
ACR 252
Page 3
intellectual property do so in a piecemeal fashion.
Background on CCST. In 1988, ACR 162 (Farr) established the
CCST and charged the council with, among other things, providing
direction for new scientific and technological activities,
stimulating the technology transfer linkage between the
university research setting and the private sector and analyzing
public policy issues and formulating policy recommendations in
the areas of science and technology. According to its website,
CCST is a "nonpartisan, impartial, not-for-profit corporation
designed to offer expert advice to the state and provide
solutions to science and technology-related policy issues." The
members of CCST include corporate CEOs, academicians, and
scientists. CCST receives much of its support and resources
from its sustaining institutions, the University of California
system, the California State University system, California
Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of
Southern California, and the California Community Colleges.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Council on Science and Technology (sponsor)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Saskia Kim / JUD. / (916) 319-2334