« November 2007 | Main | January 2008 »
In this article, we share with you a general overview of patents and trade secrets and considerations to bear in mind when deciding on your protection strategy.
Whether you keep it as a trade secret or go for a patent, the aim is the same – to stand out among the crowd for the special features you offer, and to stand out as long as possible.
California Attorney Benjamin C. Johnson has launched a blog dedicated to informing the public about Trade Secrets law at www.TheTradeSecretsBlog.com. The blog will be providing pertinent information relating to Trade Secrets Law, tracking development of Trade Secrets law and litigation, and offering practical advice to business owners on how to best protect their Trade Secrets.
Santa Monica, CA November 28, 2007 -- California Attorney Benjamin C. Johnson has launched a blog dedicated to informing the public about Trade Secrets law at www.TheTradeSecretsBlog.com. The blog will be providing pertinent information relating to Trade Secrets Law, tracking development of Trade Secrets law and litigation, and offering practical advice to business owners on how to best protect their Trade Secrets.
5 Biggest Mistakes Businesses Make Protecting Trade Secrets
Businesses continue to endure massive losses from the theft of trade secrets—in a recent survey, 40% of companies surveyed reported actual or suspected loss of trade secrets. The problem stems primarily from the rapid growth of computerization in the marketplace which makes it easier to copy, steal and misappropriate information, and therefore increases the likelihood of trade secrets theft.
Indeed, the biggest threat to your company’s trade secrets comes from within—your current and former employees are stealing your trade secrets and typically using your computers to do it. Furthermore, businesses are often unwilling accomplices to the theft because of ineffective trade secret protection strategies. Following are five mistakes businesses often make with respect to their trade secrets protection plan. Because trade secret protection is largely a managerial issue, taking these steps will decrease the chances that your trade secret information will be misappropriated, or that trade secret protection will be lost.
Jacksonville Business Journal - by Dolly Penland Correspondent
When you think of trade secrets, the formula for Classic Coke or the 11 secret herbs and spices in that bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken probably come to mind. But when it comes to trade secrets, the secret isn't always in the sauce.
"It's anything unique," said Debra Hill, an attorney at The Hill & Chevalier Law Firm. "It can be a formula, a method of operations. It could be how you reach your customers, or the difference between [a product's] cost and pricing. It could be your customer list, or how you train your employees. With franchises, the operations manual is always loaned to the franchisee. It's never given to the franchisee. If the owner gave it to them, as their property, they'd be giving away their trade secrets."
So, a trade secret is any information that gives a business an advantage over the competition. The best way to keep that advantage is to keep that secret.
"It costs nothing to keep it a secret, so remain tight-lipped and only release it to very trusted individuals," said Jo-Anne Yau, an attorney at Wood, Atter & Associates.
Hu: This is probably the one single issue that I have handled most frequently over the years. I cannot emphasize enough that due diligence is a must. It often amazes me that an otherwise savvy, sophisticated U.S. business would conduct business with a Chinese partner merely on the say-so of some person who claims to be politically connected in some vague manner. Of course, it helps if the U.S. company has registered its IP in China.
Editor: How effective are agreements with employees to control loss of trade secrets and other confidential information?
Hu: Not very effective, and this is right now a problem in China for a couple of reasons. One, there is no trade secrets law per se in China, so protection of trade secrets has been a mixture of labor law, civil law, contract law and, sometimes, even criminal law. Two, courts often do not recognize, or the laws do not proscribe, misappropriation of intangible information. Proof is the major obstacle.
The non-compete agreement. When people ponder the reasons for Silicon Valley’s surge as a startup haven—often leaving New England licking its wounds, as it did after student venture Facebook’s departure for Palo Alto, for example—they often point to the persistence of this little clause in many New England-area employment agreements as a major contributor.
The clauses are meant to prevent a company’s ex-employees from starting similar businesses that could undermine it in the marketplace. In California, courts have held that they’re unenforceable. In Massachusetts, they’re still quite common—and there’s widespread agreement that they hold back entpreneurship. Yet many big companies favor the clauses, and years of lobbying to have them outlawed in the state have come to naught.
John M. Garvey, Andrew S. Baluch
BioPharm International
The intellectual property (IP) of a company is often its core asset. Acquiring, protecting, and enforcing IP involves decisions at the highest levels of the company, and IP commands a significant portion of the company's resources. For most life sciences companies, patents are usually considered to be the principle IP asset. In practice, however, these companies usually have extensive know-how, most often kept as trade secrets. If a direct comparison could be made, a typical life-sciences company probably keeps more than two-thirds of its proprietary information in the form of trade secrets. In early stage companies, particularly in relatively new technology areas such as nanotechnology, the proportion of trade secrets to patents is much higher.
This article reviews the complementary nature of patents and trade secrets, and explains how to preserve core trade secrets while acquiring enforceable patent rights. General concepts are first introduced, and specific examples of business situations are explored.
MICHAEL RISCH
West Virginia University College of Law; Stanford Law School Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, Vol. 11, p. 1, Winter 2007
Abstract: Trade secrets are arguably the most important and most litigated form of intellectual property, yet very little has been written that justifies their existence, perhaps because they differ so much from other forms of intellectual property. This article explores the history of trade secret law in the United States and examines why it is that every state has opted to protect secret information, even though such protection is antithetical to the policies of access associated with patent law and non-protection of 'facts' associated with copyright law. In this article, I examine four potential ways to justify trade secret law. First, I consider property rights. I propose a different way to look at whether or not trade secrets are property, and conclude that further examination of the underlying bundle of rights is necessary for normative justification. I then provide and respond to criticism of three independent normative justifications for trade secret law's bundle of rights: economic justifications, philosophical justifications, and populist justifications. Contrary to other areas of intellectual property law, none of these includes an incentive to innovate as a primary feature; instead, I expand on prior economic analysis that justifies trade secrets by examining the marginal benefits of the law, answering criticism of past detractors, and considering remedies provided by the law.
The idea for this book came about following the International Bar Association's annual conference that was held in Prague in September of 2005. One of the sessions at this conference co-chaired by Pascale Lagesse and Mariann Norrbom was entitled "Restrictive covenants in employment contracts and other mechanisms for protection of corporate confidential information."
International panelists consisted of members of the legal profession, corporate representatives and a court justice. Discussions focused on key issues and the concerns companies have when seeking to protect their confidential information, and insight was given into what employers can do in order to ensure that their employees do not take valuable company information with them upon leaving the company.
Using a case study as a basis, particular emphasis was placed on non-solicitation and non-compete covenants, and the extent to which an employer can rely on such covenants when protecting his interests.The specific situation of a key employee who left her employer to join a competitor was addressed, and the types of action the employer could take in order to avoid the solicitation of his clients and staff and prevent his employees from competing against him were discussed.
This book picks up where the session left off, and consists of no less than 13 contributions from individuals from 5 continents. Each country representative has been asked to respond to a series of pertinent questions on the subjects of restrictive covenants and protection of confidential information, in order to give a comparative overview of how these issues are treated in different jurisdictions. This comprehensive publication will be a valuable resource tool for legal practitioners, employers, HR professionals and anyone interested in the field of employment law.
Over the weekend, venture capitalist Bijan Sabet kicked off an interesting discussion by saying that he doesn't believe in noncompete agreements and suggesting, anecdotally, why he thinks that they do more harm than good. Venture capitalist Fred Wilson responded by disagreeing and suggesting that noncompetes do more good than harm. This is a topic that I've become deeply familiar with recently, for some research I've been working on. My interest in the specifics of noncompetes was kicked off by a small part of David Levine and Michele Boldrin's book Against Intellectual Monopoly, where they discuss how the lack of noncompetes helped Silicon Valley grow. This lead me to a lot of research on the topic, some of which I thought it would be worth bringing up, as the discussion has become so heated -- with almost all of it focused on anecdotal points, rather than actual research. Some of this research was for a separate project I am working on, but with so much interest in the topic, I thought it would be worth a detailed post.
Some action steps companies can take to maintain trade secret status include limiting lower-level employee access to trade secret information; obtaining non-disclosure agreements from employees; taking extra password and firewall measures to safeguard information kept in electronic format; or placing printed information in safes or off-site. It's worthwhile to develop written internal company procedures on how a company protects its secrets from customers, unauthorized employees and competitors.
Here's one last tip. Employers should highlight to staff members what exactly it considers as trade secret information. Often just asking employees to sign a general confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement may not be enough to demonstrate the company's intent to safeguard trade secrets. Remember, employees can run off with valued trade secrets just as easily as outside competitors.
875 N.E.2d 1065 (Ill. 2007) Corporate employer sued former employee and her new employer for tortious interference with business relationships, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violation of Illinois Trade Secrets Act. Defendants filed motion to strike plaintiff's responses to requests to admit. The Circuit Court, Cook County, Peter Flynn , J., granted defendants' motion and denied plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file amended responses, but later sua sponte vacated the order, issued an order allowing plaintiff to file late responses, and certified a question for immediate review. The Appellate Court, McNulty , P.J., 366 Ill.App.3d 692, 304 Ill.Dec. 81, 852 N.E.2d 331, answered certified question, vacated order, and remanded. Defendants petitioned for leave to appeal.
Business Commentary: Know The Score
Dr. Maureen Stephenson
You wouldn't open your office for business and then go home without locking up, right? That's essentially what you're doing if you don't secure your business ideas by taking the steps to protect your trademarks, trade secrets and product design and packaging.
Entrepreneurs should start thinking about protecting their intellectual property earlier than most. Small businesses tend to delay this step because of the cost, but if you haven't applied for copyrights or patents, or registered your trade name and trademark or protected your trade secrets, you may have trouble making your case in court. Entrepreneurs should take their business plans to an experienced intellectual property attorney at the startup. Spending money upfront for legal help can save you from expense later by giving you strong trademark or copyright rights which can deter competitors from infringing.
Do you have trade secrets you need to protect from your competition? Courts are willing to order others not to use or reveal them, but only if you've treated them as secrets. Consider confidentiality agreements and covenants not to compete for all your employees and contract labor.
Suit accused him of breaking a noncompete agreement and hiring Jennifer Parratt and Kevin Desmond away from the Pioneer Press. A judge in September ordered him out of his job for one year in September, finding that Ridder violated Minnesota's trade secrets act.
Sacramento Business Journal - by Kathy Robertson Staff writer
A Maryland staffing company with operations in Sacramento has sued a former employee, accusing him of taking trade secrets when he went to work for a competitor here.
But not just any competitor. Aerotek Inc. alleges in court documents that Michael Ponce joined Johnson Group Staffing Co. Inc., a company that was started by former Aerotek employee Christopher Johnson -- whom Aerotek also has sued. The suit against Johnson was settled.
By Mal Leary, Capitol News Service
Bangor Daily News
AUGUSTA, Maine — After several months of discussions with fellow judges, Chief Justice Leigh Saufley believes Maine does not have any "secret dockets" or improperly "sealed records" but said she cannot be absolutely sure because court records are decentralized.
,,,
She said "a few" cases have come on appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court that were sealed and the court required "show cause" orders for the parties to justify the record staying closed. She said that in one case concerning trade secrets, the parties wanted to seal the entire case including the arguments before the Law Court.
"We rejected that," she said. "Only those documents that were trade secrets were kept confidential."
Saufley said she and the chiefs of the Superior Court and District Court have spent substantial time talking with other judges and, in some instances, checking actual records to make sure Maine does not have the problems that have surfaced in other states.
VerdictSearch New York Reporter
In this decision for the plaintiff the judge enjoined Linerode from having business dealings with her former Gore clients until Sept. 26, 2008. She was also barred from disclosing, misappropriating or using in any manner any of Gore's confidential information or trade secrets; disparaging or besmirching the reputation or character of Gore or any of its employees, products or services, and from soliciting, diverting, or
hiring or attempting to solicit, divert, or hire away, any person employed by Gore and encouraging or inducing anyone to leave Gore's employ. The judge also ordered the parties to bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. Linerode consented to the order.
The plaintiffs sought an injunction preventing the defendants from using their marks, system trade dress. The plaintiffs also sought damages for past due royalties and lost profits.
A default judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of $87,919. FL Consulting and L'Esperance were held jointly and severally liable for the judgment. Judge Stanley R. Chesler issued permanent injunction in favor of Athlete's Foot.
The plaintiffs sought approximately $1.8 million in damages and lost profits. This figure based on Millman's sales to 82 customers over a four-year period, as well as future lost profits. The plaintiffs contended that the information Millman used at Polymer Packaging was an invaluable asset Target Industrials (and hence, the plaintiffs' property). The plaintiffs also sought punitive damaages.
The jury returned a defense verdict. The jurors found that the defendant acted in good faith soliciting selling to Target Industrial's former customers and that Millman did not have a covenant not to complete with Target Industrials. The jury found that the defendants did not know and could not have known thatMillman breached a confidence by soliciting and selling to former Target Industries customers. Jurors found that the plaintiffs had unreasonably delayed asserting their claims and that the defendants were
prejudiced by the delay.
Compliments of our friends at JurisNotes.com
Full Text
CNET sued Etilize for patent infringement; the court granted in part and denied in part Etilize's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement.
CNET holds the '933 and '426 patents, which claim methods and systems for automatically creating an electronic catalog of product information gathered from various websites. CNET provides customers with a central shopping portal from which they can search for product information and purchase products from a variety of vendors. Customers pay Etilize for a subscription service called "SpeX," which gives them the right to access and use the Etilize catalog. All of the product information contained in the Etilize catalog is collected by Etilize-Pakistan, a separate Pakistani corporation. Etilize owns the catalog, but Etilize-Pakistan performs the work to collect the information.
Etilize moved for summary judgment of non-infringement on two grounds: 1) neither it nor its customers "used" the claimed systems within the United States; and 2) the catalog was not a product within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §271(g). As to Etilize's first argument, the system claims were for aggregating product information and creating a product catalog, both of which had been completed at the time the customer downloaded and used the catalog. Customers used the result of the system (the product catalog), not the system itself. Because Etilize's customers did not use the claimed system, the customers could not directly infringe the system. Accordingly, Etilize did not induce its customers to infringe by making the subscription service available and by providing user names and passwords that allowed access to the catalog. Further, because Etilize-Pakistan did not use the system within the United States, it did not directly infringe the system. The product information was aggregated, assembled, and organized in Pakistan. The situs of the use of the system as a whole was Pakistan. Neither was the court convinced that Etilize directly infringed, as use of the catalog was not use of the system itself. Regarding Etilize's second argument, the court concluded that the catalog was in fact an object that was present in the United States because the file was downloaded onto the local hard drives of computers owned by customers in the United States.
KATE DAVIDSON
Concord Monitor staff
Lawyers for state agencies and utilities have spent almost a year considering what might happen if Verizon sells its traditional telephone service in Northern New England. Critics have scrutinized FairPoint Communications - the company that wants to buy the landlines for $2.72 billion - and wondered if the small, North Carolina-based phone company has the resources or expertise to run a successful operation.
The order provides a glimpse into service quality issues in New Hampshire, but it hardly paints a complete picture, Hatfield said. Unlike in Maine and Vermont, where service quality reports are readily accessible, the reports and investigation are not available to the public in New Hampshire.
Although New Hampshire's Right-to-Know Law allows public access to the proceedings and findings of any board or commission of any state agency, Kreis cited an exemption to the law that prohibits him from discussing the service quality investigation.
RSA 378-43, part of a utilities law titled "Information Not Subject to the Right-to-Know Law," was passed in 1999, after Verizon took over phone service in the state. The law allows a telephone utility to request that any information or records provided to the Public Utilities Commission be sealed if the records relate to competitive services and would reveal trade secrets, confidential research, financial information or commercial information.
The director-general of MI5, Jonathan Evans, wrote to 300 chief executives and security heads at banks, accountancy and legal firms, warning them they were under attack from “Chinese state organizations” via the Internet, it said.
It is thought to be the first time London has directly accused Beijing of involvement in web-based espionage, the daily said.
Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown said recently he was due to visit China in January next year. The Times said Evans’s warning, which it had seen, threatened to cast a diplomatic shadow over the trip.
In particular, Evans warns companies doing business in China to be on their guard against the Chinese army, because they were using the Internet to steal sensitive commercial data.
The newspaper quoted a security expert as saying that among the techniques used by Chinese groups were “custom trojans” -- software that hacks into a firm’s network and feeds back confidential information.
The MI5 letter, on which the Home Office (interior ministry) refused to comment, includes a list of so-called “signatures” that can be used to identify such trojans, plus Internet addresses used to launch them, it noted.
Mitchell G. Stockwell, Partner, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
Jonathan K. Waldrop, Associate, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
Affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that Texas’s two-year statute of limitations barred the plaintiffs’ trade secret misappropriation claim. General Universal Sys. Inc. v. HAL Inc., 500 F.3d 444 (5th Cir., 2007) (Garza, J.).
In 1979, plaintiff General Universal Systems, Inc. (GUS) developed a software program called CHAMPION PACKER for co-plaintiff Jose Lopez. Later, Lopez created a derivative program called LOPEZ COBOL. LOPEZ COBOL was based on CHAMPION PACKER, but written in a different computer language. Lopez began selling and leasing the derivative program to clients through his own company. One of those clients was Superior Packing, Inc., a company owned by defendant Herrin. In 1992, defendants Herrin and Parkin and plaintiff Lopez formed a company named HAL Inc. (HAL) and agreed to develop and market a new software program to succeed LOPEZ COBOL. The new program was to be based in large part on LOPEZ COBOL. Herrin, Parkin and Lopez began working on the new program—called MEPAW—in the summer of 1992. Beginning in December of 1992, Lopez spent seven months in a Mexican prison. In a letter dated March 22, 1993, Herrin notified Lopez that he and Parkin agreed to oust Lopez from their agreement because Lopez’s incarceration prevented him from fulfilling his duties. Through HAL, Herrin and Parkin continued the development of MEPAW until approximately August 1993, when they began marketing MEPAW to potential clients.
Accenture (NYSE: ACN) today filed a lawsuit against Guidewire Software, Inc. (Guidewire) claiming that Guidewire has infringed the U.S. patent protecting Accenture Claim Components Solution, an insurance claims management technology that Accenture developed and licenses to the insurance industry. The suit also alleges that Guidewire misappropriated Accenture trade secrets relating to the design, coding and implementation of the claims management technology Accenture developed and patented. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Dutch navigation device maker TomTom (TOM2.AS: Quote, Profile, Research) sought on Tuesday to assure customers of digital map maker Tele Atlas (TA.AS: Quote, Profile, Research) that their trade secrets would be safe once TomTom buys the company.
The European Commission is concerned TomTom's 2.9 billion euro ($4.2 billion) takeover of Tele Atlas could harm competition and is scrutinizing the deal. U.S. competition authorities approved the planned deal in October.
EDWARD M. MAZZE
Special to The Providence Journa
* I accepted a job as a salesperson at a competitor's firm. I do not have a noncompete agreement. What am I limited from bringing to the job from my current employer?
You should not divulge any trade secrets or customer information from your current employer. Although you do not have a noncompete agreement, you may have signed a nondisclosure agreement. If so, the company has the right to sue you if you breached this agreement.
A trade secret is any form of information that by way of its secrecy has an economic value and results in a competitive advantage. A customer list may be considered a trade secret if its disclosure is limited. Your employer must demonstrate that it places value on its trade secrets by having policies regarding the confidentiality of information communicated to employees such as salespeople.
Co-Chairs
Ira J. Levy, Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY
Joseph Yang, PatentEsque Law Group, LLP, Menlo Park, CA
Why You Should Attend
Intellectual property transactions play a critical role across a variety of industries. Whether licensing patents, copyrights, trade secrets or trademarks, the ability to structure, draft and negotiate complex license agreements is critical to a successful transaction. This program is designed to address some of the more complex and practical issues that arise in drafting and negotiating licensing IP licenses. This program will feature updates on current legal developments, best practices, negotiating frequently contested issues, identifying and avoiding common pitfalls, keeping the relationship on track, litigation planning and avoidance, and ethics. The speakers will illustrate both outside counsel and in-house perspectives.
Attend the Intellectual Property for Government Lawyers seminar for the latest developments in this complex practice area. This half-day program is fully-packed with the information you need to accurately familiarize yourself with intellectual property law … and effectively handle public records requests.
Study the fascinating WIREdata v. Village of Sussex/Village of Thiensville/City of Port Washington case for an update on open records laws as applied to independent contractors and copyrighted databases. It’s an important decision to examine – so you can avoid similar situations. Plus, take a hands-on look at trade secrets, and find out how understanding them they can be a helpful ally in the context of public records.
Apple has settled a lawsuit with the popular Apple rumor blog Think Secret, forcing the blog to cease publication. This news immediately triggered a wave of anger in the blogosphere, and raises issues about revealing trade secrets the status of bloggers as journalists.
On one hand, companies which are about to launch a new product (like an iPhone for instance) has a right to preserve or reveal its corporate secrets, as long as there is no breaking news dealing about corporate malfeasance, illegal activities or hidden information.
On the other hand, bloggers, whose status seems to be getting closer and closer to journalists, maybe should have a right to access information under the Freedom of Information acts and be protected by press freedom principles when their work can be considered journalistic and of public interest.
An Austin-based startup, Silicon Space Technology Corp., has won an $18 million jury award in a lawsuit that accused chip maker LSI Logic Corp. of stealing its trade secrets.
After a three-week trial, a Travis County jury found that LSI had violated the Texas Theft of Trade Secrets Act when it took the Austin company's technology for hardening integrated circuits against cosmic radiation.
Protecting electronic circuits from radiation and particle bombardment is required for satellites and could become more important for advanced Earth-based systems that employ more advanced semiconductor devices. Silicon Space says its technology is less expensive than current methods.
The company claimed in its lawsuit that it had preliminary discussions with LSI officials in 2004 about licensing its technology. After those discussions broke off, Silicon Space learned that LSI had continued to try to use the technical information the Austin company had provided, despite giving assurances that it would not, the company said.
During the trial, Silicon Space was issued a U.S. patent covering part of its technology.
Attorney Jim George, who represented Silicon Space, said the jury verdict substantiates the startup's ownership of the technology and opens the way for licensing its know-how to other chip makers.
At least one other chip maker has expressed an interest in a licensing deal, George said.
LSI Logic did not return calls for comment.
Applied Materials Inc. and Chinese fab-tool rival Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment Inc. (AMEC) have agreed to disagree over a confidentially motion filed as part of a bitter legal battle between the two companies.
Applied Materials (Santa Clara, Calif.) seeks to prove its suit against AMEC (Shanghai) by providing a confidential "trade-secret list" to select employees from the Chinese IC-equipment supplier. In a document filed in December of 2007, Applied Materials claims AMEC is resisting the move, thereby delaying the motion.
Lincoln Electric Holdings is suing a former employee for allegedly stealing the company’s trade secrets then trying to use them to help a Chinese competitor enter the U.S. market.
In a suit filed Oct. 15 in the U.S. District Court (www.ohnd.uscourts.gov) in Cleveland, Lincoln Electric Holdings said that a former marketing and sales employee attempted to help Ningbo Longxing Group Co. of China to enter the U.S. market for welding products, and violated a non-compete agreement he had with Lincoln Electric.
Apple sued Think Secret publisher Nicholas Ciarelli in 2005, charging him with disclosing trade secrets .
Apple and Think Secret publisher Nicholas M. Ciarelli, who the computer maker sued in 2005 for disclosing trade secrets, have reached an agreement that calls for the closing of the popular Mac enthusiast Web site.
According to a press release posted Thursday on the site, the confidential settlement was a "positive solution for both sides." No sources of the information that sparked the lawsuit were revealed, the release said.
Apple sued Ciarelli, who was 19 years old at the time and a Harvard undergraduate, after he revealed details about the Mac Mini computer and other Apple products before they were announced at MacWorld in January 2005. The suit, which also named Ciarelli's company dePlume Organization, was filed in Santa Clara County, Calif., Superior Court shortly after Apple unveiled the products at the conference.
On Thursday, Ciarelli said in a statement that he was glad to have the legal wrangling behind him. "I'm pleased to have reached this amicable settlement, and will now be able to move forward with my college studies and broader journalistic pursuits."
Apple accused Ciarelli, who was also an editor at the Harvard Crimson, of "inducing" company employees to break their confidentiality agreements with the company by disclosing trade secrets. The complaint argued that Ciarelli obtained the information illegally by posting a request for people with inside information to contact the site.
Ciarelli, who launched Think Secret when he was 13 years old as an avid fan of Apple products, claimed to have used the same newsgathering practices of other journalists, and therefore was entitled to the same protections. "I talk to sources of information, investigate tips, follow up on leads, and corroborate details. I believe these practices are reflected in Think Secret's track record," he told the Crimson in January 2005.
Ciarelli's attorneys had argued that the information was legally obtained, and Ciarelli was protected by the right to free speech under the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that journalists can't be prohibited from publishing information that's lawfully obtained.
In his court filings, Ciarelli claimed that Think Secret received an average of 2.5 million page views a month. After the lawsuit was filed, the number of page views jumped to 5 million, according to the filings.
Press release: "The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press asked a federal court in Manhattan [December 21, 2007] to require open access to records in the civil case over liability following the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. Victims of the attacks and their families filed lawsuits against airline and security companies seeking to determine liability for their injury or losses due to the security breaches that led to the attacks. Documents filed with the court in this case were presumed open, except for a few narrow categories of records Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein deemed could be confidential, including financial and trade secrets data. However, the airline and security companies have been using the narrow protective order to assert that more than 99 percent of the tens of thousands of pages of documents they filed with the court should be covered as confidential under the order. The Reporters Committee argued in a friend-of-the-court brief that is extremely unlikely that nearly all the records contain the information required for confidentiality under the order and asked Hellerstein to require the parties to strictly adhere to the order, only limiting public access to that information allowable under the order...The brief was filed in In re September 11 Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York."
Intellectual property theft, terrorism, natural disasters and political instability were listed as the most serious challenges in Asia.
The threat from fraud and theft of trade secrets has been rising exponentially, the report said. It cited China and India and warned that much of the damage comes from within companies.
"OSAC advises that U.S. companies and other entities should take strong precautions against the insider threat, to safeguard communications systems, and for the safekeeping of sensitive data," the report said.
Its Clean And Green Chemicals Help Drillers Extract More Oil
(Investor's Business Daily delivered by Newstex)
Oil is big business, especially when commodity prices are high and demand strong. As oil firms crank up drilling in such an environment, the work trickles down to oil field services providers and their suppliers. One of the suppliers to the suppliers is Flotek Industries (AMEX:FTK) FTK. It focuses on specialty chemicals used in drilling, as well as drilling tools and gas extraction gear. Flotek might be a small fry on the food chain -- with total 2007 revenue of about $160 million -- but it has friends in high places.
Flotek's customers include three of the biggest names in the oil field services industry, Halliburton (NYSE:HAL) HAL, Schlumberger (NYSE:SLB) SLB and BJ Services (NYSE:BJS) BJS.
Well, it appears that Platform Solutions Inc, the IBM-thwarted mainframe wannabe, has taken its list of grievances against Big Blue to the European Commission, as we've suggested it would, and lodged a formal antitrust complaint against the company with the regulators.
The complaint was quietly made on October 19, according to Bloomberg, which broke the story Tuesday. The EC says it is in the preliminary stages of examining it.
PSI has charged IBM with violating Article 82 of the EC Treaty by refusing to supply interface information on its mainframes and refusing to license its patents and z/OS operating system to third parties like it used to.
The news that popular Apple rumor site Think Secret will be shutting down as part of an agreement with Apple gives the distinct impression the Cupertino company managed to bully the site and its publisher into submission. But Gross & Belsky partner Terry Gross has a very different take on the agreement.
Gross, who's represented Think Secret publisher Nick Ciarelli since 2005, says Apple is actually the real loser in this deal. And others, including some digital rights groups, seem to agree.
"The First Amendment has prevailed," Gross told Computerworld on Thursday, "and every internet journalist should feel some strength from what's happened."
This page contains all entries posted to The Trade Secrets Vault in December 2007. They are listed from oldest to newest.
November 2007 is the previous archive.
January 2008 is the next archive.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
