Trade secret in intellectual property

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Honey Malhotra
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Trade Secret

Intellectual Property: Theory, Privilege, and Pragmatism

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam D. Moore
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Secret ◽  
Social Constructions ◽  
Property Theory ◽  
General Terms ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
Definition Of

In the most general terms, this article focuses on the tension between competing justifications of intellectual property. Section I examines the nature and definition of economic pragmatism and argues that, while economic pragmatism comes in many flavors, each is either unstable or self-defeating. Section II advances the view that Anglo-American systems of intellectual property have both theoretical and pragmatic features. In Section III a sketch of a theory is offered--a theory that may limit applications of economic pragmatism and provide the foundation for copyright, patent, and trade secret institutions. To be justified--to warrant coercion on a worldwide scale--systems of intellectual property should be grounded in theory. Intellectual property rights are, in essence, no different than our rights to life, liberty, and tangible property. Intellectual property rights are neither pure social constructions nor bargains without foundations.

scholarly journals Do Cultural Differences Impact on Intellectual Property Protection in the United States and China?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meihua Chen ◽  
Tao Jin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Knowledge Economy ◽  
Cultural Influences ◽  
Core Competency ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trade Secret ◽  
Intellectual Property Protection ◽  
Knowledge Practices

In a knowledge economy, intellectual property is highly related to core competency of an organization. Without proper protection, the competitive advantage is vulnerable to imitation and counterfeiting. Intellectual property protection can be seen as information and knowledge activities that are taken to prevent trademark, patent, copyright, and trade secret infringement. Between the United States and China, there is an intense and enduring controversy on intellectual property protection. Many previous relevant studies on this issue adopted a legal and governance approach, rarely focusing on the effect of cultural differences on these information and knowledge practices. This paper reports the theoretical exploration portion of an on-going empirical research on the cultural influences that impact intellectual property protection in the two countries, aiming to draw some implications for the field of knowledge management.

What nanotech inventors need to know about trade secrets and the prior user rights defense

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chinh H. Pham ◽  
Ross Spencer Garsson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trade Secret ◽  
Trade Secrets ◽  
The World ◽  
New Challenges ◽  
The Many

AbstractThe America Invents Act (AIA) presents new challenges and strategy considerations for nanotechnology inventors and companies that seek to protect their intellectual property in the United States. Among the many notable changes, the AIA expands the “prior user rights” defense to infringement and broadens the classes of patents that are eligible for the new limited prior user rights defense. While this defense is limited in some instances, such as against universities, it could be invaluable in others, such as when a competitor independently discovers and patents the trade secret. In the world of nanotechnology, where inventions and products are increasingly complex, this protection can prove to be vitally important.

scholarly journals Perlindungan Pemilik Rahasia Dagang Dalam Perjanjian Waralaba

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anik Tri Haryani
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Trade Secret ◽  
Trade Secrets ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
Research Show

Tight business competition requires creativity for entrepreneurs to stay competitive by seeking new breakthroughs in developing their businesses. Many franchise models are chosen to develop businesses. One of the criteria for franchising is the Intellectual Property Rights that have been registered including trade secrets. The purpose of this study is to examine the legal protection of trade secret owners in a franchise agreement, and legal consequences if there is a violation of trade secrets in the franchise agreement. The method used in this study is juridical normative with a law approach and conceptual approach. The results of the research show that the protection of trade secrets in the franchise agreement can be done by making an agreement which contains a confidential information, non disclosure agreement clause, a non compete agreement as well as a non solicitation agreement clause. Legal consequences in the event of a violation of trade secrets in the franchise agreement can be prosecuted civilly by paying compensation through a lawsuit to court or can be resolved through arbitration or alternative dispute resolution. In addition, it can also be prosecuted according to Article 17 paragraph (1) of Law Number 30 of 2000 concerning Trade Secrets with the penalty of imprisonment of a maximum of two years and a maximum fine of three hundred million rupiah.

scholarly journals Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age: 2016 - Chapters 1 and 2

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Trade Secret ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Trade Secrets ◽  
Digital Copyright ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Right ◽  
Trade Secret Protection

Rapid advances in digital and life sciences technology continue to spur theevolution of intellectual property law. As professors and practitioners inthis field know all too well, Congress and the courts continue to developintellectual property law and jurisprudence at a rapid pace. For thatreason, we have significantly augmented and revised "Intellectual Propertyin the New Technological Age.The 2016 Edition reflects the following principal developments:● Trade Secrets: Congress passed the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, oneof the most momentous changes in the history of trade secret protection. Thenew law opens up the federal courts to trade secret cases, provides for exparte seizures of misappropriated trade secrets in “extraordinarycircumstances,” and establishes immunity for whistleblowers.● Patents: The past several years have witnessed some of the mostsignificant developments in U.S. patent history — from the establishment ofthe new administrative review proceedings at the Patent Office to importantshifts in patent-eligibility, claim indefiniteness, and enhanced damages atthe Supreme Court and means-plus-function claim interpretation andinfringement doctrine at the Federal Circuit. We have restructured thepatent chapter to illuminate these areas. We have also significantlyexpanded coverage of design patents in response to the growing importanceof this form of protection.● Copyrights: The Supreme Court issued important decisions addressing thepublic performance right and the first sale doctrine. The past few yearsalso witnessed important developments in the Online Service Provider safeharbor, fair use, and state protection for pre-1972 sound recordings. Wehave also integrated the digital copyright materials into a unifiedtreatment of copyright law and substantially revamped the fair use sectionto reflect the broadening landscape of this important doctrine.● Trademarks: We have integrated important cases on federal registrabilityof disparaging marks, merchandising rights, likelihood of confusion on theInternet, and remedies.● Other State Protections: We have updated material on the right ofpublicity, an active and growing area. We have also reorganized the chapterand focused it on IP regimes.

scholarly journals Principles of Responsibility of Actors of Unlawful Activities Economic Rights in Copyright

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. 386
Author(s):  
Hisbullah Idris ◽  
L. Budi Kagramanto ◽  
Fajar Sugianto
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Trade Secret ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Human Needs ◽  
Commercial Value ◽  
The Law ◽  
Human Intellect

God bestows spirit and reason to humans to be able to think, create, discover new things and perfect them to meet human needs both as individuals and as groups of society, which in turn gives birth to intellectual property. According to Nolo, Stim, Richard Intellectual property refers to the product of human intellect which has commercial value and is specifically protected by law. Intellectual property includes creative works, a wide variety of products, processes, images, inventions and services that are protected by patent, copyright, trademark or trade secret laws. The principle of Responsibility for Actions against the Law. Moral rights are the principle of responsibility with deliberate mistakes. The Principle of Responsibility for Unlawful Actions regarding the Cancellation of Copyright is the principle of responsibility. The Principle of Responsibility for Unlawful Acts regarding Abolition is the principle of absolute responsibility.

Patent and Trade Secret in Digital Libraries

2009 ◽  
pp. 330-335
Author(s):  
Hideyasu Sasaki
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Digital Library ◽  
Digital Libraries ◽  
Trade Secret ◽  
Intellectual Property Protection ◽  
Parameter Setting ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
The Future ◽  
Intellectual Properties ◽  
The U.S

In this chapter, we discuss the issues on patent and trade secret issues on digital libraries, especially patentable parameter-setting components which are implemented as computer-related inventions in digital libraries. In addition, we discuss the directions for embedding and protecting numerical parametric information as a trade secret in the patentable parameter-setting components performing retrieval operations of digital libraries with the future of intellectual property protection in the multimedia digital libraries. The scope of this chapter is restricted within the current standard of the U.S. laws and cases in transnational transaction and licensing of intellectual properties regarding the digital library.

scholarly journals Some Economics of Trade Secret Law

1991 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
David D Friedman ◽  
William M Landes ◽  
Richard A Posner
Keyword(s):  
Economic Theory ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Practical Importance ◽  
Trade Secret ◽  
Business Community ◽  
Trade Secrets ◽  
Positive Economic ◽  
The Common

Despite the practical importance of trade secrets to the business community, the law of trade secrets is a neglected orphan in economic analysis. This paper sketches an approach to the economics of trade secret law that connects it more closely both to other areas of intellectual property and to broader issues in the positive economic theory of the common law.

scholarly journals The Missing Algorithm: Safeguarding Brady Against the Rise of Trade Secrecy in Policing

2021 ◽  
pp. 157
Author(s):  
Deborah Won
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Trade Secret ◽  
Intellectual Property Protection ◽  
The State ◽  
Police Departments ◽  
Power Asymmetry ◽  
Due Process Rights

Trade secrecy, a form of intellectual property protection, serves the important societal function of promoting innovation. But as police departments across the country increasingly rely on proprietary technologies like facial recognition and predictive policing tools, an uneasy tension between due process and trade secrecy has developed: to fulfill Brady’s constitutional promise of a fair trial, defendants must have access to the technologies accusing them, access that trade secrecy inhibits. Thus far, this tension is being resolved too far in favor of the trade secret holder—and at too great an expense to the defendant. The wrong balance has been struck. This Note offers three contributions. First, it explains the use of algorithms in law enforcement and the intertwined role of trade secrecy protections. Second, it shows how trade secrecy clashes with the Due Process Clause—the Constitution’s mechanism for correcting the power asymmetry between the state and the defendant—and argues that due process should not waver simply because a source of evidence is digital, not human. Third, it proposes a solution that better balances a defendant’s due process rights with intellectual property protections.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document