Better statement of background law

[heathermeeker]

This is an interesting project. I hope you don't mind a suggestion.

"In the United States, without an express agreement employers usually own works subject to copyright and have either ownership or a "shop right" to use inventions."

This is not quite correct. Under US law, the work-made-for-hire doctrine only covers copyright and not patents. The main reason employers want PIIAs is to get assignment of patent rights. The default under US law is only a shop right (i.e. non-exclusive license) and not ownership, which can only pass via a written assignment, such as in a PIIA. I think you have mis-cited the law review article.

[mlinksva]

I don't mind at all, thank you! The README could likely use a number of updates, but this may be a bug from inception. Re-reading the cited page, "either ownership or" probably comes from the "hired to invent" case.

Would striking "either ownership or" be enough of a change for accuracy?

[heathermeeker]

Yes, it would. BTW I could make a lot of suggestions to this project if you like, but it might involve a lot of proposed changes and I did not want to presume you wanted that. If you are interested let me know.