Merge pull request #156 from hanu-14/f1vhs9

fix: upgrade http:// to https:// in README

Author: mlinksva

README.md

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ PDF, ODT, and DOCX copies of BEIPA are [available for download](https://github.c
 
 ### Why are employee IP agreements deemed necessary by employers?
 
-In the United States, without an express agreement employers usually own [works subject to copyright](https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf) and have a ["shop right" to use inventions](http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1251&context=nlj#page=2). With an express agreement, employers can obtain lower risk, more certainty, and more control over more IP in more situations – so it's easy to understand that robust IP agreements with employees (and contractors) are necessary. But it's possible for IP agreements to go too far...
+In the United States, without an express agreement employers usually own [works subject to copyright](https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf) and have a ["shop right" to use inventions](https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1251&context=nlj#page=2). With an express agreement, employers can obtain lower risk, more certainty, and more control over more IP in more situations – so it's easy to understand that robust IP agreements with employees (and contractors) are necessary. But it's possible for IP agreements to go too far...
 
 ### How does BEIPA differ from other employee IP agreements?
 
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ You don't want to have to look over your shoulder or hide, feel forced into stay
 
 ### Why is BEIPA good for innovation? For society?
 
-We know that societies and industries prosper when there is clear and fair (thus efficient and legitimate) property ownership and high labor autonomy and mobility. Employer control of all IP created by employees, even created during free time and not related to the business, sets up conflict, is perceived as unfair, and has employees and their ideas trapped. The effects of such control projected into the future (or not) has been well [studied](http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/serien/lm/DRUIDwp/10-02.pdf): the non-enforceability of non-compete agreements in California is one of the key advantages Silicon Valley has had over other regions, where employees have to wait years to strike out on their own.
+We know that societies and industries prosper when there is clear and fair (thus efficient and legitimate) property ownership and high labor autonomy and mobility. Employer control of all IP created by employees, even created during free time and not related to the business, sets up conflict, is perceived as unfair, and has employees and their ideas trapped. The effects of such control projected into the future (or not) has been well [studied](https://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/serien/lm/DRUIDwp/10-02.pdf): the non-enforceability of non-compete agreements in California is one of the key advantages Silicon Valley has had over other regions, where employees have to wait years to strike out on their own.
 
 Broad adoption of BEIPA should have similar beneficial effects for the communities and industries in which BEIPA is adopted.
 
@@ -53,13 +53,13 @@ A different employee IP agreement *could* stipulate that all IP created by the e
 
 BEIPA covers all forms of IP. A BEIPA covered employee can file a patent on work outside of the scope of their employment, and the employee would own it (if it is related to the employer's business, the employer automatically gets a non-exclusive license).
 
-If employer and employee have particular patent objectives, they could be spelled out in a different or complementary IP agreement or other policy. One example of such an agreement is the [Innovator's Patent Agreement](https://github.com/twitter/innovators-patent-agreement) from Twitter, a commitment from a company to its employees that the company will not use patents in offensive litigation without the permission of the inventors. Other pertinent policy choices include participation in anti-troll and non-aggression networks such as [LOT](http://lotnet.com/) and [OIN](https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/), as well as contributing to open source projects.
+If employer and employee have particular patent objectives, they could be spelled out in a different or complementary IP agreement or other policy. One example of such an agreement is the [Innovator's Patent Agreement](https://github.com/twitter/innovators-patent-agreement) from Twitter, a commitment from a company to its employees that the company will not use patents in offensive litigation without the permission of the inventors. Other pertinent policy choices include participation in anti-troll and non-aggression networks such as [LOT](https://lotnet.com/) and [OIN](https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/), as well as contributing to open source projects.
 
 ### In what jurisdictions is BEIPA applicable?
 
 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 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.
+Even within the United States, limits on employer ability to claim *all* employee-created IP vary. In [California](https://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.