Trade Secret Protection Research Articles

REGULATORY ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION: NON-SAFETY CONTEXTS

In order to approximate the laws of the EU Member States in the field of handling classified information and to establish a comparable level of protection of such information from illegal receipt, use or disclosure throughout the EU, Directive 2016/943 on the protection of undisclosed information was developed and approved in June 2016. how and business information (trade secrets) from illegal receipt, use and disclosure (hereinafter - the Directive). The Directive introduces the concept of "trade secret", defines the lawful and illegal acquisition, use and disclosure of trade secrets, establishes procedures and remedies for the illegal acquisition, use or disclosure of trade secrets in the context of the application of security conditions. The purpose of the article is to substantiate the essential characteristics of trade secrets, as well as to study the legal framework of domestic experience and international cooperation on the basis of a practical mechanism for ensuring safe operating conditions. The article examines the conceptual and categorical apparatus of trade secrets and the regulatory framework for international cooperation, respectively. The practical set of measures to preserve the confidentiality of trade secrets is substantiated. As a result of scientific research, the essential and substantive characteristics of provision the Directive as the main legal vector of ensuring safety conditions have been identified. Based on this, the implementation the legal aspects of international cooperation in the context of secure measurement at trade secrets is demonstrated. Summarizing scientific research, it should be noted that a country like Belgium, taking into account the Directive, has adopted a law aimed at protecting undisclosed know-how and commercial information (trade secrets) from illegal possession, use and disclosure. This Law has implemented all the above-mentioned recommendations on the protection of trade secrets during court proceedings. It is investigated that the German parliament passed the Law on Trade Secrets of the Federal Government. This law implements European Parliament Directive (EU) 2016/943 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and trade information (trade secrets) against their illegal acquisition, use and disclosure in German national law in order to establish uniform protection of trade secrets. The law provides for the confidentiality of court proceedings. In civil proceedings, by granting jurisdiction to certain specialized courts in cases of commercial secrecy, the possibility of classifying the proceedings as confidential at the request of one of the parties, and the potential limitation of the number of persons entitled to access evidence and / or hearings. Keywords: international cooperation, normative-legal base, Directive, trade secret, security contexts, security conditions.

“Protection of Trade Secrets”

“Protection of Trade Secrets”

Protection of trade secrets and corporate tax avoidance: Evidence from the inevitable disclosure doctrine

In this study, we investigate the effect of the protection of trade secrets through the adoption of the inevitable disclosure doctrine (IDD) by US state courts on corporate tax avoidance. We suggest a positive impact of IDD adoption on tax avoidance, because IDD adoption reduces information transparency by increasing the benefit of nondisclosure and, hence, creates greater opportunities for firms to engage in more aggressive tax avoidance activities. Based on a large sample of US firms between 1977 and 2011, we find a significant increase in tax avoidance for firms in states that have adopted the IDD, compared with firms in states that have not adopted it. We further show that the impact of the IDD on corporate tax avoidance is more salient in firms with lower internal information quality. Our findings have important implications for both investors and regulators.

Discussion on Legal Model of Intellectual Property of Computer Software

With the development of computer software and information technology, software industry has become one of the important engines of modern economic construction and structural transformation in China. However, because the computer software is very complex and the industry value is high, it is easy to lead to the flood of intellectual property infringement, which is undoubtedly a great blow to the researchers in the field of computer technology and related industries. Therefore, through analyzing the current situation of intellectual property protection of computer software, this paper fully discusses the comprehensive construction mode of copyright law, patent law and trade secret protection law, in order to ensure the innovation and application environment of this intellectual property right.

"국제적 영업비밀 침해소송에서의 국내법의 일반적 역외적용 가능성* — 국제관습법의 형성원리를 통한 전망 —"

최근 기업의 영업비밀 및 중요 산업기술이 침해되는 모습을 보면 많은 경우 해외의 경쟁사에 의한 기술전문인력의 부정스카우트 등 국경을 초월한 형태로 나타나고 있다. 하지만 이에 대한 법적 대응 시 각국의 영업비밀보호법 등 관련 보호법제가 정비되어 있음에도 국외에서의 행위에 대한 재판관할 확대의 한계로 인해 이를 적절하게 규율하지 못할 위험이 존재한다. 즉, 기존의 국제재판관할 및 준거법 결정에 대한 이론은 원칙적으로 개별 국가의 영토 경계를 국가주권의 행사를 위한 재판관할 및 입법관할의 범위로 파악하였기에 세계화·국제화된 오늘날의 상황에 부합하는 적절한 법리라고 할 수 없으며, 국외의 영업비밀에 대한악의의 침해자가 이러한 구조적 한계를 악용할 소지도 다분하다. 그러므로 현시점에서 국제재판관할 확대의 법리 및 그 궁극적 귀결로서 국내법인 영업비밀보호법의 역외적용 법리에 대한 재검토가 필요하며, 이는 미래적 관점에서 국제사회를 단일의 경제공동체로 파악하거나 최소한 세계화로 인한 초밀접사회의 현실에 기반한 것이어야 할 것이다. 이러한 시각에서 본 논문은 영업비밀 및 산업기술 보호를 위한 국제적 차원의 재판관할 및 입법관할 법리에 대한 변화의 필요성을 인식하고, ‘국내법으로서의 영업비밀보호법의 역외적용’이 국제질서 하에서 일반적으로 이루어질 수 있을지에 대하여 검토하여 보았다. 하지만 이 문제는 현실적 필요성이 있다고 하여 바로 실행될 수 있는 것이 아니고, 기존의 재판관할에 대한 법리에 부합하여야 할 것인데, 그 기준이 되는 법리는 현재의 이에 관한 국제법이 될 것이다. 그러므로 국제법의 대표적 법원(法源)은 조약 및 국제관습법이기에 그것이 이미 존재하는 경우에는 그 내용을 절차법적·실체법적 차원으로 구분하여 검토하여 보았고, 존재하지 않거나 명확하지 않은 경우에는 기존의 다른 규정 및 법리들로부터 그 내용을 추측해 보았다. 또한 국제관습법이라는 것은 국제사회에서의 국제정치질서의 반영이라고도 볼 수 있기에 앞서의 법리적 검토와는 다른 차원에서 미래의 관련 국제법의 변화모습을 검토해보고자 국제정치학적 관점에서 향후 영업비밀보호법의 역외적용에 대한 현실적 가능성을 전망해 보았는데, 이를 위하여 과거 경쟁법의 역외적용 사례를 분석하여 보았으며 그 결과 국내법의 역외적용이 국제적 차원에서 보편화되기 위해서는 3가지 조건이 충족되어야 함을 알았다. 분석결과 결론적으로 기존의 주권국가의 영토를 경계로 하는 재판관할 및 준거법의 결정법리는 극복되고 있으며, 각국의 영업비밀보호 관련 입법관할 및 재판관할 범위는 좀 더 유연하게 해석할 수 있어야 함을 파악하였다. 그리고 이와 같은 방향성 하에 국내법으로서의 영업비밀보호법의 역외적용이 일반적으로 가능해지는 모습이 미래의 국제재판관할 및 준거법 결정에 대한 국제관습법이 될 수 있음을 예측해볼 수 있었다. 이는 과거 경쟁법의 역외적용이 세계적으로 일반화 되어가던 모습과 유사하며, 또한 이러한 해석이 현재의 영업비밀보호를 위한 관련 국내법 및 국제법 규정과 배치되지 않음도 확인하였다.

Trade Secret Protection for the External Features of Digital Files

Protection of Trade Secrets

Obtaining Evidence in Patent Litigation and Trade Secret Protection – A Tale of Two Poles

Abstract In this article, the authors compare how the courts in two different jurisdictions handle trade secrets in patent litigation. Even though the two countries observed, Finland and Germany, are both continental European civil law systems with similar legal traditions, the approach to trade secret protection in litigation is quite different in many aspects. While Finland already has comparatively sophisticated legislation and jurisprudence when it comes to the protection of trade secrets, the German approach is rather different, and could be compared to a patchwork carpet. In this article, the authors review the international and European legal framework before delving into the details of the two national legal systems. Finally, they give guidelines on how to harmonize trade secret protection in litigation in order to strike a fair balance between the different interests at stake.

Corporate Espionage by Drone: Why Corporations Need Better Physical and Legal Protections

Today, corporate espionage has taken on a new, and more dangerous form, by using drones as the medium to conduct trade secret misappropriation and cyber-attacks against unsuspecting businesses. Drones allow for physical and cyber-attacks to be carried out with ease. They are cheap, easily accessible, and easy to use. Drones can be utilized in the stealing of trade secrets, consumer information, or even cause an interruption in the business’s daily processes - each costing the corporation tremendously. Part II of this Comment will provide a brief overview of relevant trade secret law, including the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, the Economic Espionage Act, and the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and discuss traditional and modern corporate espionage tactics. Part II will also cover the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and discuss the basic rules drone pilots must obey. Part III will discuss the problems arising for corporations when bad actors use drones for espionage and cyber-attacks, and present that counter-drone technology should be available to American businesses as it is a justified form of self-help. Part IV will provide a short synopsis of the counter-arguments against counter-drone technology use, and discuss the mitigation and other uses of counter-drone technology in other industries. Drones will become the future of corporate espionage and corporations need to have the resources necessary to protect themselves from this current, and only growing, threat. The use of C-UAS technology is a proactive step, which is more beneficial to the company, than the traditional and ill-fitting reactive steps currently available. C-UAS technology is justifiable self-help, necessary for the protection of trade secrets.

Non-Competes and Other Contracts of Dispossession

Employers have used non-compete clauses to deprive tens of millions of workers of the freedom to change jobs or start their own businesses. In occupations ranging from home health aide to journalist and sandwich shop worker, employers have used this legal power to their great benefit. Non-compete clauses reduce worker mobility, help employers keep wages and wage growth down, deter small business formation, entrench potentially abusive, discriminatory, or hostile work environments, and fortify market power to the detriment of workers, rivals, consumers, and broader society. The justifications for non-compete clauses are unpersuasive. While employers and their advocates argue that they are necessary to protect investment in workers, such as trade secrets and training, there are at least three reasons to reject that reasoning. First, a broad dissemination of information across firms is often good for society. Second, non-competes are onerous for workers and a flawed means of protecting intangibles. Third, other measures, such as trade secret law and employment contracts, are more effective at protecting trade secrets and other intangibles and also much less restrictive for workers. Non-competes are merely one example of abusive contractual terms that the legal system has condoned or tolerated. Other terms, such as mandatory arbitration, class action waivers, confessions of judgment, and unilateral modification, reflect a ubiquitous economic and political problem. Corporations use these contractual terms to unilaterally rob consumers, suppliers, and workers of a wide range of constitutional and statutory rights. Like non-competes, these contractual terms are established in an environment of radical inequality between a corporation and a worker, consumer, or small business and are often contingent and non-salient to the person or business who must accept them. The result of these contracts of dispossession is the loss of legal recourse for wrongdoing, loss of possessions, and the imposition of unaccountable private governments. Congress should pursue a comprehensive legislative solution to contracts of dispossession. First, it should enact a comprehensive law banning these contracts of dispossession. Second, it should delegate authority to a federal agency to identify and outlaw novel contracts of dispossession in the future. These legislative reforms would remake contract law to liberate workers, consumers, and small businesses from the private rule of corporations.

Trade Secret Protection and Firms’ Internal Transparency

We examine the effects of trade secret protection laws on firms’ internal transparency. By internal transparency, we refer to the extent to which information is integrated, distributed, and shared within the firm. We argue that stronger trade secret protection reduces firms’ proprietary costs of information leakage and thus incentivizes firms to increase their internal transparency. To test our prediction, we construct a novel proxy of firms’ internal transparency based on the share of sites integrated into its enterprise system and exploit the staggered adoption of trade secret protection laws via the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. We find that stronger trade secret protection increases firms’ internal transparency, and that the effect is stronger (weaker) for firms with more pronounced proprietary costs (coordination benefits). In supplemental tests, we distinguish our proxy from information security as well as general software investments and refute alternative explanations that trade secret protection laws affect internal transparency primarily via other channels such as firms’ innovation incentives, external reporting incentives, or reduced financial constraints. Taken together, our results enhance our understanding of the economic forces shaping firms’ internal information environment.

Organizational and legal security of business trade secrets

The article is dedicated to the study of legal and illegal acquisition, use and disclosure of trade secrets of business, in the context of the application of security conditions. It is established that a comprehensive analysis of the provisions of the Directive and legislation of Ukraine on the protection of trade secrets indicates the relevance of clarifying certain issues of the protection of trade secrets of businesses in Ukraine, which as a consequence will ensure a high level of security conditions. The conceptual and categorical apparatus of trade secrets and the normative and legal basis for ensuring international cooperation, respectively, was investigated. A practical set of measures to ensure the confidentiality of trade secrets of business was substantiated. As a result of scientific research, the essential and substantive characteristics of the provision of the Directive as the main legal vector of ensuring security conditions have been identified. The provisions that should be taken into account when protecting the trade secret of the business are highlighted, namely: clarification of the procedure for securing the claim and precautionary measures; protection of trade secrets during court proceedings; clarification of legislation regarding the disclosure of trade secrets in the public interest, etc. It is determined that the current procedural legislation also requires improvement in the issue of ensuring in any type of judicial proceedings to limit access to materials that contain information constituting a business secret, in particular, by determining the circle of persons who will have access as such and the opportunity to become familiar with the materials of the case. Based on this, the implementation of the legal aspects of international cooperation in the context of secure measurement of trade secrets is demonstrated. The adoption of the Law provides for the confidentiality of court proceedings. In civil proceedings, authorizing the transfer of jurisdiction to certain specialized courts in cases of breaches of business secrets, the ability to classify litigation as confidential at the request of one party, and the potential limitation of the number of persons entitled to access evidence and / or hearings.

A comparative analysis of the approaches to trade secrets protection between Namibia and the USA

The adequacy of trade secret protection is one of the key pillars for promoting domestic and foreign-derived innovations. Therefore, various countries have chosen varying approaches that they deem adequate to protect the trade secrets of their citizens and foreigners. This article compares the approaches to protecting trade secrets in Namibia and the United States of America (USA). The analysis demonstrates that the USA approach better protects trade secrets, whether domestic or foreign, as it removes many uncertainties and brings simplicity and uniformity to litigating trade secrets issues, including clarity on available civil or criminal remedies. For members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), having an adequate statute for the protection of trade secrets also removes the weakness of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which only requires that members enforce IPR through domestic law enforcement in the member state. Developing nations, like Namibia, can therefore adopt a statutory approach as applied in developed nations like the USA. Adequate protection of trade secrets will not only increase domestic innovation but may also lead to ease of collaboration with developed nations in innovation-related projects.

A Brief Analysis on the Legal Issues of Trade Secret Protection in China’s High-Tech Industry

The protection of trade secrets is a more complex problem. Compared with the past, the difficulty of the protection of trade secrets in high-tech industry now has increased a lot. Based on the characteristics of high-tech industry, the practicability, confidentiality and economy of trade secrets, and combining with the current market environment in China, this article tries to put forward the legal protection advice of trade secrets in line with the characteristics of high-tech industry in China, in order to provide some ideas for future research.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)

This submission provides a critical analysis of the proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) – focusing in particular upon intellectual property and innovation policy.Recommendation 1 RCEP has a broad membership – even with the departure of India from the negotiations. Nonetheless, there remain outstanding tensions between participating nations – most notably, Australia and China. The re-emergence of United States into trade diplomacy will also complicate the geopolitics of the Asia-Pacific.Recommendation 2 The closed, secretive negotiations behind RCEP highlight the need for a reform of the treaty-making process in Australia, as well as the need for a greater supervisory role of the Australian Parliament.Recommendation 3 In terms of intellectual property principles and objectives, RCEP promotes foreign investment and trade, and intellectual property protection and enforcement. The agreement needs a stronger emphasis on public policy objectives – such as access to knowledge; the protection of public health; technology transfer; and sustainable development.Recommendation 4 RCEP establishes TRIPS-norms in respect of economic rights under copyright law.Recommendation 5 The agreement does not though enhance copyright flexibilities and defences – particularly in terms of boosting access to knowledge, education, innovation, and sustainable development.Recommendation 6 RCEP provides for a wide range of remedies for intellectual property enforcement – which include civil remedies, criminal offences and procedures, border measures, technological protection measures, and electronic rights management information. Such measures could be characterised as TRIPS+ obligations.Recommendation 7 The electronic commerce chapter of RCEP is outmoded and anachronistic. Its laissez-faire model for dealing with digital trade and electronic commerce is at odds with domestic pressures in Australia and elsewhere for stronger regulation of digital platforms.Recommendation 8 RCEP provides for protection in respect of trade mark law, unfair competition, designs protection, Internet Domain names, and country names.Recommendation 9 As well as providing safeguards against trade and investment action by tobacco companies and tobacco-friendly states, RCEP should do more to address the tobacco epidemic in the Asia-Pacific.Recommendation 10 RCEP has a limited array text on geographical indications, taking a rather neutral position in the larger geopolitical debate on the topic between the European Union and the United States.Recommendation 11 RCEP has provisions on plant breeders’ rights and agricultural intellectual property. There is a debate over the impact of such measures upon farmers’ rights in the Asia-Pacific.Recommendation 12 RCEP does not adequately respond to the issues in respect of patent law and access to essential medicines during the COVID-19 crisis. Likewise, RCEP is not well prepared for future epidemics, pandemics, and public health emergencies.Recommendation 13 RCEP provides limited protection of confidential information and trade secrets – even though there has been much litigation in this field in the Asia-Pacific.Recommendation 14 RCEP is defective because it fails to consider the inter-relationship between trade, labor rights, and human rights.Recommendation 15 RCEP fails to provide substantive protection of the environment, biodiversity, or climate in the Asia-Pacific.Recommendation 16 RCEP does little to reform intellectual property in line with the sustainable development goals.Recommendation 17 RCEP does not adequately consider Indigenous rights – including those in the Asia-Pacific.Recommendation 18 RCEP does not contain an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. However, the Investment Chapter does have a number of items, which are problematic.

Concept of trade secrets in India

The researcher's goal with this article is to clarify India's legislative framework for trade secret protection. Because in the age of globalization, every company's unhappiness or success is dependent on its secrets whether they be strategy-related secrets or customer information trade secrets are becoming more important. Trade secrets provide a competitive advantage in the commercial world, and as a result, one must guarantee that his or her business-related private knowledge is properly protected from rivals. The purpose of trade secret legislation is to protect, maintain, and promote business ethics and reasonable transactions, as well as to urge modernisation. Since the advantages of the information economy have been rapidly increasing, trade secrets have become the Intellectual Property of Choice. So, in order to attain competent simplicity in commercial transactions, it is essential to outline the laws necessary to properly protect trade secrets in India, as well as for the smooth operation and fair competition of a business in the market. The researcher is attempting to emphasize the rules governing trade secrets in India via this study report. Furthermore, a conclusion will be offered based on case law examples in order to alleviate the inadequacies that trade secret owners confront. The practical scenario will evaluate how the law defines trade secrets, how it protects them, and the suggested measures.

Regulating Explainable AI in the European Union. An Overview of the Current Legal Framework(s)

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is relevant not only for developers who want to understand how their system or model works in order to debug or improve it, but also for those affected by such technology. Determining why a system arrives at a particular algorithmic decision or prediction allows us to understand the technology, develop trust for it and – if the algorithmic outcome is illegal – initiate appropriate remedies against it. Additionally, XAI enables experts (and regulators) to review decisions or predictions and verify whether legal regulatory standards have been complied with. All of these points support the notion of opening the black box. On the other hand, there are a number of (legal) arguments against full transparency of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, especially in the interest of protecting trade secrets, national security and privacy. Accordingly, this paper explores whether and to what extent individuals are, under EU law, entitled to a right to explanation of automated decision-making, especially when AI systems are used.

한국에서 사물인터넷과 관련한 빅데이터 보호제도의 현재와 그 방향 - 사물인터넷의 특성과 부정경쟁방지 및 영업비밀보호에 관한 법률에 의한 보호의 충분성에 중점을 두고

한국에서 사물인터넷과 관련한 빅데이터 보호제도의 현재와 그 방향 - 사물인터넷의 특성과 부정경쟁방지 및 영업비밀보호에 관한 법률에 의한 보호의 충분성에 중점을 두고

Comparative characteristics of trade secret in the legislation of foreign countries and in international law

The purpose of the article is to investigate the place of trade secrets in regulations, international treaties, foreign legislation, and key means of protecting trade secrets in accordance with these regulations. A comparative analysis of current norms and provisions of the system of legislation of foreign countries in terms of protection of trade secrets. An analysis is performed of international treaties and the legal framework of foreign countries, namely, the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Stockholm Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization of 1967 in terms of protection of trade secrets in order to improve national legislation in this area. It has been emphasized that the definition of trade secrets is similar in the Civil Code of Ukraine and in the TRIPS Agreement, which enshrines three criteria of trade secrets: secrecy, commercial value and taking adequate measures to ensure secrecy. It is noted that legal protection provides for and requires the owner of the commercial secrecy to take appropriate measures to ensure the protection of relevant information from unfair commercial use. Sometimes the misappropriation of a trade secret is the result of industrial espionage, when a person provides classified information to a competitor for monetary or other remuneration. The main provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on trade secrets are analyzed in comparison with the EU legal system, according to which patent law provides additional incentives for the application of the commercial secrecy regime to protect confidential information. Four approaches to understanding this legal regime in the doctrine of Anglo-Saxon legal systems are analyzed: the theory of contractual obligation, the theory of fiduciary (trust) relations, the theory of misappropriation and the theory of unfair competition. It is concluded that the applied criteria for classifying information as a trade secret are similar, in relation to actions that are not appropriation of a trade secret, in particular, in relation to the ‘legalization’ of reverse development, which is relevant for the information technology industry. Ukraine has the prospect of including in its legislation an important legal act – the Law of Ukraine on Trade Secrets, which will have a positive impact on the business climate, promote investment attractiveness, and meet the needs of businesses and the state.

Trade Secret Protection as Part of Intellectual Property System: a Comparative Study of Indonesian and United States of America Trade Secret Law

Legal protection of intellectual property is an important element in supporting creativity and trade. Indonesia has ratified the Agreement and Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and has enacted Law number 30 of 2000 concerning Trade Secret. Legal protection of trade secrets aims to protect business actors in trade practices both regionally and internationally. In addition, protection of trade secrets can prevent unfair business competition. Thus, business people have wider opportunities to develop their creativity and business. This research method is a normative research with comparative research type. This study examines the comparison of intellectual property protection laws specifically regarding trade secrets with laws in United States. The purpose of this comparative normative study to examine the extent to which the Trade Secret Act can be effective in its application as can be applied in the Supreme Court Decision.

Normative structure of Indonesian pharmacy trade secret law

This article aims to analyze the normative structure of Indonesia's trade secret protection law in the pharmaceutical sector. The analysis is carried out through two prisms: the different intellectual approaches to the judicial review law: the 'basic approach' and the 'legal approach.' Various trade secret crimes in the pharmaceutical sector, such as theft of prescription drugs and drug counterfeiting, continue to increase. We explore developments from both approaches and trace contemporary developments from the approach to law on trade secrets. We then reflect on how each response to two central legitimacy issues should provide legal protection for every owner of the trade secret in the pharmaceutical sector and the public who are victims or perpetrators of criminal trade secrets in the pharmaceutical sector.