Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
05/11/2022 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
HB344 | |
SB185 | |
HB408 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
*+ | HB 344 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
+= | HB 408 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | SB 185 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 344-INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF EMPLOYEES 3:19:56 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 344, "An Act relating to employee intellectual property." CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that HB 344 is a bill by the House Labor and Commerce Committee by way of Senator Jesse Kiehl. 3:20:30 PM SENATOR JESSE KIEHL, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 344. He thanked the co-chairs for taking up an issue that was discussed earlier in the session and making it a committee bill. He explained that HB 344 is designed to provide protection for innovation and innovators in Alaska and aligns with similar laws passed in recent years by Washington, Kansas, California, and Minnesota. He said the premise of the bill is to protect the intellectual property of an employee who innovates on their own time, but the bill does not change the well-established law that when someone is working for the boss, the boss owns the work product. The bill clarifies, he continued, that when someone is working on their own time with their own equipment and not employing their boss's resources, then the boss cannot claim the person's work product as theirs and cannot ask the employee to sign an employment contract that says otherwise. Senator Kiehl related that an Alaskan brought this issue to the legislature's attention and his understanding is that this Alaskan is currently in litigation. He specified that nothing the legislature does can or should affect an ongoing lawsuit, and this is seen in an applicability clause so that the legislature doesn't step over that line with this bill. This bill, he added, is designed to make the rules clear for the future so that employees and businesses know where the rules are, and everyone can work and innovate and enjoy the fruits of their industry. 3:22:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE NELSON stated he understands that HB 344 relates to employees, but inquired about student research that creates an invention and then the university claims credit for or utilizes that [invention] afterwards. SENATOR KIEHL replied that in most situations where a student is working on a research project with a university, the student would be using the university's laboratories and equipment and probably getting a stipend from a university grant. Therefore, he said, the student would be under the terms of the bill using the boss's equipment and on the boss's paid time, so any patents coming from that research would probably adhere in the university under the usual sharing agreements that the university has with its professors. 3:23:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY spoke about the originality of thought and how someone formulates because they have grabbed information from other places, such as working for a company and sharing a dialogue of thought. He inquired about the point at which a business is involved in the formulation of a thought, even though an employee goes home. He further inquired about where the differentiation exists for an employer on this concept of original thought and transition of information in formulating new ideas that may be directly related to the employment. SENATOR KIEHL responded that the bill's language gives clear guidelines regarding that, and if trade secret is involved it is clear cut. He drew attention to page 1, lines 9-10, which provide a topical guideline. He posed an example of a computer programmer doing information technology (IT) security for McCarty Industries. If on his spare time at home and not using McCarty Industries computers, the programmer creates a game called First Person Shooter, it is unrelated, and McCarty Industries doesn't have any right to the programmer's intellectual property in the game. However, he continued, if on his spare time at home and on his own computer, the programmer creates an anti-virus program, then there is a significant overlap of the actual research and development that the programmer is doing for McCarty Industries and then there would be potential employer claim to that intellectual property. 3:27:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked how a no-compete clause, a contractual agreement for employment, would fit into the bill or whether the bill would eliminate the no-compete clause for employers. SENATOR KIEHL answered that nothing in the bill would impact a non-compete provision. He said the bill deals only with ownership of the intellectual property. 3:28:00 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS observed that the fiscal note states the legislation does not contain a provision for penalties, nor does it grant enforcement powers to the Wage and Hour [component]. He related that Title 23 empowers the [Department of Labor and Workforce Development] and says the department may enforce all state labor laws. Given the bill would add a section in Title 23, he asked whether it is fair to say that under AS 23.05.060 the department may enforce all state labor laws should the bill pass. He said [the bill would create] a currently undefined enforcement authority within the department. He said he also thinks that an affected employee would retain a private right of action just like they would in the event of wage theft. He further asked whether an employee would be protected both by state enforcement capacity and through private right of action. SENATOR KIEHL deferred to his staff member, Cathy Schlingheyde, to answer the question. 3:29:15 PM CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, Staff, Senator Jesse Kiehl, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Senator Kiehl, responded that HB 344 specifically contemplates a private right of action where the employee can address the employer. She said she doesn't believe that the state would be able to enforce this, but she will confirm that and get back to the committee. 3:29:39 PM The committee took a brief at-ease. 3:29:52 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that HB 344 was held over.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
HB 344 Sectional Analysis 5.11.22.pdf |
HL&C 5/11/2022 3:15:00 PM |
HB 344 |
HB 344 Fiscal Note - DOLWD-WH 5.6.22.pdf |
HL&C 5/11/2022 3:15:00 PM |
HB 344 |
HB 344 Sponsor Statement 5.11.22.pdf |
HL&C 5/11/2022 3:15:00 PM |
HB 344 |
HB 344 ver A 2.17.22.PDF |
HL&C 5/11/2022 3:15:00 PM |
HB 344 |
HB 408 ver B 5.10.22.pdf |
HL&C 5/11/2022 3:15:00 PM |
HB 408 |
SB 185 CS ver E 5.11.22.pdf |
HL&C 5/11/2022 3:15:00 PM |
SB 185 |
CS HB 408 (L&C) v. B Summary of Changes_5.11.22.pdf |
HL&C 5/11/2022 3:15:00 PM |
HB 408 |