Aug
06
I’ve just been taking a little time this summer to focus on other fun things. Worry not, postings shall begin again fairly soon.
Jul
09
Law firm Fish & Richardson, P.C. has published a useful trade secrets handbook. You can also download a PDF version from the site. I’m working on a similar guide, but it’s still in the early drafting stages. (Hat tip to the Trade Secrets Vault–I feel like I’m constantly copying their stuff, but it’s an excellent resource and I hope my “copying” helps build their readership.)
The Trade Secrets Vault has also provided a link to an IP journal article on trade secrets.
Technorati Tags:
trade secret
Another ouch.
As usual, the “cover-up is worse than the crime” in this lawsuit.
The worst thing a potential defendant in a trade secrets case can do is to try to erase the data and cover up the tracks. If you discover an employee has trade secrets on his computer, confiscate it, lock it up, and preserve it. Doing so can demonstrate your responsible conduct and mitigate the damage.
Ouch.
If the U.S. Attorney’s office in San Jose, CA, is anything like ours in the Northern District of Indiana, the office would not have filed charges unless it was certain it could obtain a conviction.
No question that Hewlett-Packard did the right thing when it discovered this executive was spreading IBM’s trade secrets around HP. Sometimes you just have to shake your head and wonder, “What was this guy thinking?”
Although the U.S. and Australia share common roots in their legal system, laws in Australia and the United States can be quite different.
In the realm of trade secrets, however, it appears that Australia has some of the same legal requirements as we do here in the States. The lesson of this article may come from Down Under, but it’s definitely applicable up here.
Technorati Tags:
confidential information
trade secret
Jun
25
Nolo Press, the publisher of many do-it-yourself legal guides, has published a quick primer on trade secrets.
Google, the Internet giant, has been sued by a small company for $1 billion in damages. The plaintiff claims Google misappropriated its trade secrets.
This article poses the interesting question: can a person changing jobs commit a thoughtcrime?
Computer technology has made it possible for us to store important information in one place and, in some instances, control access to it. Systems like this can be useful for protecting trade secrets.
Using computers and networks, however, are not foolproof. A collection of stories published at InfoWorld’s web site shows just how easy it is for dumb mistakes to compromise the security of your computer data–which may include your trade secrets.
One more thought for your consideration (borrowed from the stories at InfoWorld): if someone wanted to copy your trade secrets off the computer, how easy would it be for that person? You can make it a bit harder by having your IT staff remove CD-burning drives from the computers. The ease with which flash drives can be carried around calls for some methods of preventing their use for copying files as well.
An article in InvestmentNews discusses how brokers feel constrained by trade secrets issues when they consider moving from one firm to another. Also noteworthy are the considerations the firms must examine in this situation.
Much of this comes back to a core issue: Who owns what is in one’s head? The employee? The employer? There are plenty of “urban legends” about what rights an employer has to an employee’s work-related intellectual property. We will have to examine some more of those in the near future.