This is a process in which society has contributed in one way or another thus any one firm or person cannot expect to be granted exclusive rights to ideas. Ideas are thus meant for collective good of the society. When a new idea is learned, it free use must follow since that is the only way society can benefit from the idea in the best possible manner. In his introductory essay for The Common Good and U.S. Capitalism, Oliver E. Williams writes: "To be sure, individual autonomy is not unimportant but this notion only has meaning in the context of a community that puts limits on any personal projects for the sake of common life." (p. 3)
In this case therefore, San Bruno Instruments should not expect exclusive ownership of rights since Dr. Janice and others worked hard to produce those ideas. It can be used by San Bruno Instruments and Millbrae Tech in any manner they wish and the growth of the idea must not be impeded. This is because "[The common good is] the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment." The society will benefit more if Dr. Janice and everyone else who have access to creative or scientific ideas are allowed to employ it in whatever manner they deem fit.
Now turning our attention to legal repercussions, it is important to see how Susan and others at Millbrae Tech can protect their firm from legal problems. It is clear from the case that apart from the policy there is no other document restricting Dr. Janice's use of ideas she learned at San Bruno. Any legal claims made by San Bruno then have no legal significance without proper contractual support. Since Dr. Janice has not signed any document pertaining to her use of ideas, she is under no legal obligation to give up...
This is also true because if the firm claims exclusive ownership of ideas, Dr. Janice can easily launch a counter battle on similar grounds. She can file a counter claim for exclusive ownership of ideas since they are products of her labor. There are usually only two methods by means of which employers can claim exclusive ownership of ideas but it must be borne in mind that this claim may not always be seen as a legal right. It 'only' puts the employer in stronger legal position and employees still have all the rights to launch a counter-claim. These methods are called: assignment provision (AP), and the second is a trade-secret handling procedure (TSHP). "Assignment provisions typically stipulate that any ideas employees come up with in the course of their employment legally belong to their employers... TSHPs usually require employees to treat ideas as if they are trade secrets." (Hannah: 2004) In the absence of these documents, the firm has no particular advantage over Dr. Janice and the latter enjoys the same position as San Bruno Instruments does in fighting for 'ownership of ideas."
References
Maritain, Reflection on America, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958. p. 118.
Oliver E. Williams, "To Enhance the Common Good: An Introduction," in Williams and Houck, eds., The Common Good and U.S. Capitalism, p. 3
John Locke, THE SECOND TREATISE: (1952)
David R. Hannah, Who Owns Ideas? An Investigation of Employees' Beliefs about the Legal Ownership of Ideas, CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION Management Volume 13 Number 4 December 2004
Hesse, Carla. The rise of intellectual property, 700 B.C. -- A.D. 2000: an idea in the balance. Daedalus; 3/22/2002;
WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 180-81 (Washington ed., 1903).
