Merge pull request #76 from garrison/patch-1

Fix typo in README.md

README.md

@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ If employer and employee have particular patent objectives, they could be spelle
 
 BEIPA was initially written for the United States. Version 2.0 also incorporates language necessary for use in Germany. Feedback on making it more useful in any jurisdiction is most [welcome](CONTRIBUTING.md).
 
-Even within the United States, limits on employer ability to claim *all* employee-created IP vary. In [California](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=3.&chapter=2.&lawCode=LAB&article=3.5.) the main difference made by BEIPA is that IP developed with company equipment or relating to the company's business, but in an employee's free time and which the employee is not involved in as an employee, is not owned by the company (but the company does get a non-exclusive and unlimited license if the IP relates the the company's business). This recognizes that from the employee perspective, segregating one's life activities based on ownership of devices at hand or relatedness to an employer's potentially vast range of business that an individual employee is not involved with as an employee imposes significant cognitive overhead and often doesn't happen in practice, whatever agreements state. It also recognizes from the employer's perspective that the employer has a real interest in being able to use any IP created during an employee's term of employment that is related to their business (note this expands and makes explicit the traditional "shop right" to use in lieu of demanding exclusive control). In some states with less employee-friendly law, BEIPA makes a bigger difference relative to the maximum employer control allowable by law often baked into employee IP agreements.
+Even within the United States, limits on employer ability to claim *all* employee-created IP vary. In [California](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=3.&chapter=2.&lawCode=LAB&article=3.5.) the main difference made by BEIPA is that IP developed with company equipment or relating to the company's business, but in an employee's free time and which the employee is not involved in as an employee, is not owned by the company (but the company does get a non-exclusive and unlimited license if the IP relates to the company's business). This recognizes that from the employee perspective, segregating one's life activities based on ownership of devices at hand or relatedness to an employer's potentially vast range of business that an individual employee is not involved with as an employee imposes significant cognitive overhead and often doesn't happen in practice, whatever agreements state. It also recognizes from the employer's perspective that the employer has a real interest in being able to use any IP created during an employee's term of employment that is related to their business (note this expands and makes explicit the traditional "shop right" to use in lieu of demanding exclusive control). In some states with less employee-friendly law, BEIPA makes a bigger difference relative to the maximum employer control allowable by law often baked into employee IP agreements.
 
 See [Laws Concerning Employment Agreements and Intellectual Property Assignment](Employee_IP_Laws.md) for a collection of some laws regulating employee IP agreements. Some of these may be helpful information for or even required notifications to covered employees. Currently only U.S. state laws are included. Contributions to coverage of other jurisdictions are welcome.