Re: L.Rev (C) Release

On Mon, Nov 08, 1999, Bruce E. Hayden <bhayden[_at_]ieee.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Harold Federow <haroldf[_at_]bsquare.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 04, 1999, Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, but unfortunately we are pretty clearly employees acting in the
> > > scope of our employment. That is enough to trigger work-for-hire
> > > status under the 1976 Act, unless the non-statutory "teacher
> > > exception" is thought to apply.
> >
> > Or something else might also apply: At the University of Washington here
> > in Seattle, the code governing faculty and professional staff explicitly
> > exempts these kinds of things from University ownerships (but does not
> > do the same for inventions!). So, you also have to check the governing
> > "employment" documents.
>
> But is this really sufficient to take things out of work for hire
> situation? Possibly if you view these rules as defining what is
> within the scope of employment for faculty, but then again, there
> is always the argument that you make below - that they are hired
> to teach, research, and write. If that is the case, then at best
> I would think that the school policies would work to create a
> limited license to the faculty to license their works.

I think of it more as the University waiving its rights as an employer.

Harold

Harold Federow
<haroldf[_at_]bsquare.com> Received on Tue Nov 09 1999 - 17:49:34 GMT