Legislation intended to clarify how the state of California manages and protects its intellectual property is moving forward at the state Capitol on the heels of a high-profile case that has troubled the National Park Service.
In January, Yosemite National Park decided to change the names of many of its historic buildings and hotels in order to avoid the potential for copyright infringement held by a concessionaire whose contract wasn't renewed. The change has been unpopular among park-goers.
A bill passed last week by a 76-to-3 vote in the Assembly would instruct the state of California to take additional steps to manage and protect the intellectual property agencies and departments hold.
"These are assets to the State of California and I think are very important for us to protect and not give away in the way that the trademarks really were given away in the Yosemite National Park instance," Assemblymember Mark Stone, D-Monterey, said during an Assembly committee hearing in April.
The Assembly Judiciary Committee and its chair Stone introduced AB 2880.
One of the aims of AB 2880 would be to clarify existing law so that a state entity can't dispose of its intellectual property through contracts or other means without going through a Department of General Services process, Stone said.
Stone asserted that intellectual property generated by state employees will continue to remain in the public domain (as it's made with taxpayer dollars). But occasionally the state does acquire IP through a contractual transaction or does hold its own trademarks, for instance.
A 2011 state audit found that information technology is one of the few areas where California does provide detailed guidance for managing intellectual privacy. More than a decade ago, the Department of General Services issued IT standard contract language in which "the contractor owns the intellectual property but the state has a perpetual, royalty‑free license to it, enabling the state to modify it and share it with the public and other governmental entities," the audit said.
According to a committee analysis, AB 2880 would stipulate that any work released into the public domain shall be deemed a public record. The Electronic Frontier Foundation opposed the bill in April, citing concerns it could give the state the ability to suppress documents from the public view.
Stone reiterated that most of the state's IP would continue to be made available in the public domain.
