BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | ACR 252|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: ACR 252
Author: Mullin (D)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OR FILE
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 79-0, 8/18/04 (Passed on Consent)- See
last page for vote
SUBJECT : California Council on Science and Technology
SOURCE : California Council on Science and Technology
DIGEST : This resolution 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.
ANALYSIS : 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
CONTINUED
ACR 252
Page
2
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.
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 a manner to promote free competition and
enterprise without unduly encumbering future research
and discovery.
1. 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 State 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.
This resolution was similar to AB 2319 (Mullin), which the
passed the Assembly 77-0, but was amended out for a new
ACR 252
Page
3
issue.
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
intellectual property do so in a piecemeal fashion.
FISCAL EFFECT : Fiscal Com.: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/12/04)
California Council on Science and Technology (source)
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Aghazarian, Bates, Benoit, Berg, Bermudez, Bogh,
Calderon, Canciamilla, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cogdill, Cohn,
Corbett, Correa, Cox, Daucher, Diaz, Dutra, Dutton,
Dymally, Firebaugh, Frommer, Garcia, Goldberg, Hancock,
Harman, Haynes, Jerome Horton, Shirley Horton, Houston,
Jackson, Keene, Kehoe, Koretz, La Malfa, La Suer, Laird,
Leno, Leslie, Levine, Lieber, Liu, Longville, Lowenthal,
Maddox, Maldonado, Matthews, Maze, McCarthy, Montanez,
ACR 252
Page
4
Mountjoy, Mullin, Nakanishi, Nakano, Nation, Negrete
McLeod, Oropeza, Pacheco, Parra, Pavley, Plescia, Reyes,
Richman, Ridley-Thomas, Runner, Salinas, Samuelian,
Simitian, Spitzer, Steinberg, Strickland, Vargas, Wesson,
Wiggins, Wolk, Wyland, Yee, Nunez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Campbell
DLW:sl 8/25/04 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****