Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

blockquote statutes #32

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Feb 1, 2017
Merged

blockquote statutes #32

merged 4 commits into from Feb 1, 2017

Conversation

mlinksva
Copy link
Collaborator

@mlinksva mlinksva commented Feb 1, 2017

Toward fixing #28

However, there are problems:

  • The California lines starting with 2870. etc are taken as a numbered list -- starting from 1.
  • Line breaks aren't rendered without a blank line between them.

I suspect to make this work have to do further for-markdown formatting (introducing blank lines, which doesn't look great in some cases) and for California, additionally either slightly changing the text so that leading numbers aren't taken to denote an numbered list..perhaps 2870. -> 2870).

If my suspicion is correct (hopefully I'm missing some tricks), I don't think this is a great solution.

@lee-dohm
Copy link

lee-dohm commented Feb 1, 2017

In CommonMark, if you place a backslash between the number and the period of a line beginning with [number].[space], it ceases to be interpreted as an entry in an ordered list.

CommonMark Example widget

2870. (a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either:
(1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or
(2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.
(b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.
(Amended by Stats. 1991, Ch. 647, Sec. 5.)

2871. No employer shall require a provision made void and unenforceable by Section 2870 as a condition of employment or continued employment. Nothing in this article shall be construed to forbid or restrict the right of an employer to provide in contracts of employment for disclosure, provided that any such disclosures be received in confidence, of all of the employee’s inventions made solely or jointly with others during the term of his or her employment, a review process by the employer to determine such issues as may arise, and for full title to certain patents and inventions to be in the United States, as required by contracts between the employer and the United States or any of its agencies.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 1001.)

2872. If an employment agreement entered into after January 1, 1980, contains a provision requiring the employee to assign or offer to assign any of his or her rights in any invention to his or her employer, the employer must also, at the time the agreement is made, provide a written notification to the employee that the agreement does not apply to an invention which qualifies fully under the provisions of Section 2870. In any suit or action arising thereunder, the burden of proof shall be on the employee claiming the benefits of its provisions.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 1001.)

@mlinksva
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mlinksva commented Feb 1, 2017

Thanks for the tip @lee-dohm (above, and nudge to try blockquoting)! I think this is now an improvement over preformatted blocks. I'll experiment with judiciously adding newlines to break up some of the blobs of now present.

@lee-dohm
Copy link

lee-dohm commented Feb 1, 2017

You're welcome! I'm glad I could help 🙇 I'm really excited about this project. (Having trudged along under multiple oppressive IP regimes in the past 😆)

guided by presentation of statutes at each state website rather
than uniformity here
@mlinksva
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mlinksva commented Feb 1, 2017

Fidelity to presentation on state websites now very good.

@mlinksva mlinksva merged commit ebfcd5a into master Feb 1, 2017
@mlinksva mlinksva deleted the blockquote-statutes branch February 1, 2017 02:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants