Washington Convention Center in Washington,
DC, from February 4-6, 2008, for the inaugural COMPUTER
FORENSIC SHOW!

By most estimates, 90% of legal evidence resides in computer
systems, rather than on paper. Cases involving corporate
trade secrets; personal and commercial disputes; employment
discrimination; misdemeanor and felony crimes and personal
injury can be won or lost solely with the introduction of
recovered email messages and other electronic files and
records!

The Computer Forensics Show will focus on topics of interest
to legal and risk management professionals and will address
the key issues that relate to what they need to know about
the industry, and how computer forensics can help drive
revenue for their practice.

Like it or not, every computer is a potential crime scene
and must be treated with care. When companies need to
conduct internal investigations -- especially those
involving litigation -- discovering and maintaining evidence
becomes paramount. For some companies, it is not a question
of if one of their computers will be used as evidence in a
legal matter; it is a question of when. No longer can
parties or their counsel claim to be unaware of digital
data. Instead, judges are expecting e-savvy litigators in
their courtrooms.

Today's business environment continues to become more and
more complex -- with strict regulatory and compliance
requirements, increased scrutiny and the ever-present threat
of litigation. Because the majority of information today is
created and available only in an electronic format,
electronic data and the ability to properly address it in a
defensible manner are increasingly critical to the legal
process. These services are vital to any individual,
company, or law practice with cases that deal with sensitive
information stored on digital media.

Register Today!
http://www.technolawyer.com/r.asp?L12723&M11119

JACK ELLIOTT JR.
Associated Press Writer

Pet food manufacturer The Iams Company contends Mississippi State University research documents it has been ordered to give People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are trade secrets and not public record.

Iams and the university have appealed Chancery Judge Dorothy Colom's adverse decision to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

The case is among dozens the Supreme Court will hear during the January-February term. The court will not hear oral arguments in the cases. The justices will instead rely on attorneys' briefs to make their decisions.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire

Two Department of Defense contractors were arrested in New York City on Jan. 6, 2008, and charged with conspiring to steal information relating to U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) contracts to supply fuel to DOD aircraft worldwide, the Department of Justice
announced today. Two contractor firms and a third individual are also charged
with participating in the conspiracies.

In a three-count indictment returned on Dec. 5, 2007, and unsealed today in
U.S. District Court in Baltimore, Christopher Cartwright and Paul Wilkinson
were charged for their roles in the conspiracies. Along with Cartwright and
Wilkinson, two affiliated companies -- Prague, Czech Republic-based Far East
Russia Aircraft Services Inc. (FERAS) and the Isle of Man-based Aerocontrol
LTD -- were also charged in the indictment. FERAS also has an office in
Houston. Cartwright and Wilkinson are U.S. citizens who have been living in
Prague. A separate charge was filed today in U.S. District Court in Baltimore
against a third individual, Matthew Bittenbender, alleging the same criminal
conduct. Bittenbender resides in Baltimore. The Department said the
conspiracies took place from about February 2005 to about July 2006.

By Neil Wilkof, Herzog, Fox & Neeman, Tel-Aviv, Israel (hfn@hfn.co.il). Mr. Wilkof writes regularly on licensing issues.

See the quality value added content you get with BNA International World Intellectual Property Report Daily

We all know that while patents and trade secrets may both potentially cover similar subject matters, the rights and obligations afforded by each are fundamentally different. From my experience, however, the differences between the two sets of rights are not always fully appreciated in practice. A particularly interesting example is the differing function of “design around” in patents and trade secrets, respectively.

Patent law and practice has carved out a central place for the ability of persons to design around existing patents, based on disclosure and publication of patented inventions. On the one hand, the publication of patents serves to prevent the duplication of inventions by setting a rough boundary within which competing inventions tread at their own legal peril. On the other hand, the publication of patents enables competitors to design around the protected invention, adding to the reservoir of disclosed inventions that will ultimately become part of the public domain. Ideally, therefore, the ability to design around contributes to both the quality and quantity of patents.

Licensing may have a role in this process. A licensee might not only make direct use of the licensed patent, but might also take advantage of the knowledge and experience gained through the license to design around the patent. If this occurs, however, there is nothing in principle that prevents the licensee from seeking to design around the licensed patent, just as third parties may do so, assuming that in doing so the licensee is not in breach of some contractual or other obligation.

From the halls of academia...
Tracie Watson, Elisabeth Piro
24 Hofstra Lab. & Emp. L.J. 333 (Winter 2007)
[Trade Secrets section of article]

D. Trade Secrets and Blogging

Based upon the principles of law set forth in the Religious Tech cases, there is little doubt that an at-will employee who chooses to post information regarding his employer's trade secrets on a blog, will retain his employment. The doctrine of at-will employment enables an employer to fire an employee with or without cause. In light of the increased use of the internet as means to dispel trade secrets, employers certainly have great cause for concern. The internet, and blogs in particular, present a fast, easy and affordable way for an employee to post his employer's trade secrets in an effort to perhaps take revenge against his employer for not giving him the raise he wanted. As such, it has become necessary for employees to enact precautionary measures, such as security schemes, in order to protect their trade secrets. Although an employer has a right to fire an employee based upon the doctrine of at-will employment for misappropriation, and that employee may be held directly liable for his actions, the cost to an employer of losing a trade secret can be a large one - including the loss of a business.

SUNNYVALE, CA

Silicon Image, Inc., a leader in semiconductors for the secure storage, distribution and presentation of high-definition content, today announced that the trial in its trade secret and copyright infringement case against Analogix Semiconductor, Inc. has been scheduled for April 2008 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

In his ruling on Silicon Image’s motion for a preliminary injunction, Judge Joseph C. Spero concluded that “Silicon Image has demonstrated a strong probability of success on the question of misappropriation” and thus ordered an expedited trial. The trial was originally set for September 2008.

WASHINGTON — Executives from a Czech aviation services firm affiliated with Houston-based Universal Weather and Aviation have been accused of conspiring to buy information from a competitor to help land fuel supply contracts for the Pentagon.

All three men have been charged with conspiring to defraud the United States, to commit wire fraud and to steal trade secrets. Cartwright and Wilkinson, both U.S. citizens living in Prague, were arrested Sunday in New York.

Elizabeth E. Blakey, Law Offices of Elizabeth E. Blakey, Drama Lawyer

In the discovery phase of modern lawsuits, parties often face the production of electronic evidence or data, in addition to the production of paper documents. Under general principles and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, both types of evidence are considered "writings" or "things" that must be produced to the extent relevant or likely to lead to the production of relevant evidence. However, production of both electronic data and paper copies gives rise to a number of discovery issues, including; who should bear the burden of such productions, whether such productions are unnecessarily cumulative, and whether such productions cause confidentiality and trade secret problems that must be resolved by entry of a protective order governing the scope of the production.

The DC Bar Association is offering a CLE seminar titled How to Recognize Critical Software IP Issues in Everyday Practice.

The program will take place on Wednesday, January 30 from 6 to 9:15 p.m. at the DC Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street, NW, Washington, DC.

This course will arm the non-IP attorney with a good understanding of software and intellectual property rights, so the practitioner can identify key software IP issues arising in everyday practice. The program will briefly explore software basics prior to dissecting the patent, copyright, trade secret and trademark rights frequently incorporated in software. It also will touch on specific examples of software IP issues arising in a variety of transactional settings such as employment and contracting, mergers and acquisitions, lending, angel investments, and bankruptcy.

The speaker will be David Temeles, Bean Kinney & Korman PC.

For information on registration fees and available CLE credits, see the Bulletin Board on The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel website at www.metro- corpcounsel.com.

To register for the seminar, call (202) 626-3488 or visit www.dcbar.org.

KM-WhitePapers Alert Hijacked computers, or zombies, hide inside networks where they send spam, steal company secrets, and enable other serious crimes. This paper discusses how the threat has evolved, explains how zombie networks, or botnets, are created and highlights how even organizations with reliable gateway and endpoint protection are vulnerable to these email- and web-borne threats.

Holding :Competitor did not misappropriate trade secrets of provider of web-based services for e-mail management and storage. Under Massachusetts law, a competitor did not misappropriate the trade secrets of a provider of web-based software, hardware, and services for e-mail management and storage. The competitor did not use the provider's trade secrets after it acquired them.

The Connecticut Law Tribune
Vol 13, No. 53 (2007)

A plaintiff that did not allege that the defendant itself disclosed or used trade secrets, only that the defendant encouraged, aided or abetted a third-party to use trade secrets, failed to allege a violation of CUTSA, the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act, C.G.S. §35-51(b). Plaintiff Control Module designs and markets products that track time and attendance, access and inventory. Timothy Morello, the plaintiff's vice president of product engineering, was responsible for developing a 'stand alone terminal' at the request of a potential customer, defendant Data Management. The 'stand alone terminal' was designed to track worker time and attendance, using software developed by Data Management. The plaintiff designed and demonstrated stand alone terminals in December 2003 and February 2004, but Data Management did not purchase them. Instead, Data Management's president allegedly offered Timothy Morello a job as chief technology officer in March 2004. Afterward, Data Management's president allegedly met with Morello and informed him, 'if you build it, I will buy it.' Morello and a senior design engineer who worked for the plaintiff formed a business called Xipher Technologies LLC in September 2004. Defendant Data Management purchased Xipher's data collection machines, which allegedly compete with the plaintiff's products. The plaintiff sued and alleged that Data Management violated the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The court granted the defendants' motion to strike the CUTSA count. The plaintiff's complaint did not allege that Data Management itself obtained and disclosed trade secrets, only that it encouraged, aided and abetted the use of trade secrets by a third party, Xipher. Encouraging, aiding and abetting are not included in the definition of 'misappropriation' in CUTSA.

Control Module Inc. v. Data Management Inc.U.S. District Court (Doc. No.
3:07CV00475)Thompson, J. • Dec. 10, 2007 • 10 pages.Full text available at
www.ctlawtribune.com

Please see December issue of the Trade Secret Report.

With companies operating in the global economy, knowing whether non-competition agreements will be enforced in other jurisdictions is essential for both those seeking to enforce and those likely to be subject to enforcement action. Unfortunately, there is much variation not only in the United States itself, with different states adopting different stances on whether non-competition agreements may be enforced, but also across the European Union. This article will highlight some of those differences, both in the United States and in the European Union, and suggest how companies may prepare to meet the challenges of enforcing non-competition agreements in and across various jurisdictions.

The National Law Journal
Vol. 30, No. 17 (2008)

A TRIAL COURT ERRED in ordering Bridgestone to disclose its skim stock formula during pretrial discovery in a products liability suit, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled on Dec. 18 in a case of first impression. Bridgestone Americas Holding Inc. v. Mayberry, No. 48S02-0703-CV-120.

In 2001, Harmony Wigley died in a collision after losing control of her 1992 Ford Escort. Her estate's representative, Violet Mayberry, and Wigley's mother filed a products liability suit against several Bridgestone and Firestone companies, alleging that tread separation in a steel-belted tire caused the accident. During pretrial discovery, the plaintiffs sought the formula for the steel belt skim stock on the tire in question. Skim stock is one of several compounds that adhere the rubber with the steel. Bridgestone objected and moved for a protective order covering all trade secrets used to produce the tires in question, including the skim stock formula. An Indiana trial judge ordered Bridgestone to disclose the skim stock formula. An intermediate appellate court rejected Bridgestone's argument that the plaintiffs had failed to show that their need for the formula outweighed the harm of disclosure.

Reversing, the Indiana Supreme Court applied a three-part analysis -- from the widely adopted Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(7) -- for trial judges to determine whether trade secrets are subject to discovery in litigation. First, the party opposing discovery must show that the information sought is a 'trade secret or other confidential research, development or commercial information,' and that disclosure would be harmful. Then the burden shifts to the party seeking discovery to show that the information is relevant and necessary for a trial. If both parties satisfy their burdens, the court must weigh the potential harm of disclosure against the need for the information in reaching a decision. Applying the test to the case at issue, the court said the record clearly showed that the information was a trade secret and that the plaintiffs had failed to show that the information was necessary to the presentation of their case.

From our friends at JurisNotes.com

Patriot Homes v. Forest River Housing (7th Cir 1/10/08) Decision Short Summary
Patriot and Patriot Manufacturing, Inc. (collectively "Patriot") sued Forest and various individuals (collectively "Forest") for misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement, and related claims. The trial court granted Patriot's motion for a preliminary injunction and the 7th Circuit vacated and remanded.

The parties compete in the modular housing manufacturing industry. Patriot sued Forest and four former Patriot employees (now Forest employees) for copying its home designs and misappropriating its trade secrets. Before leaving Patriot, the four employees copied information from the company's computers and brought the materials with them when they joined Forest. Forest allegedly used this information to build and sell modular homes. Forest argues that Patriot's alleged trade secrets are readily ascertainable and in the public domain. After the preliminary injunction hearing, Forest sent FOIA requests to various states requesting copies of the documents that Patriot submitted for state approval. In response, Forest obtained thousands of documents, including Patriot's systems manuals, quality assurance manual, and individual modular submissions. Forest contends that the trial court's injunction is so vague as to constitute only a general prohibition not to break the law, leaving it without guidance as to when Forest's actions might violate the injunction.

The 7th Circuit agreed that it was not clear from the injunction order what the trade secret or confidential information was in this case. Patriot claimed that its trade secret was the "playbook" for constructing modular homes, consisting of its blueprints, engineering calculations, quality control manuals, and other documents. Patriot did not deny that much of the information identified by it was readily available when Forest submitted its FOIA requests. Forest could not tell whether using the information it obtained through the FOIA requests would violate the injunction. It was up to the trial court to clearly delineate Forest's responsibilities pursuant to the injunction. As the matter now stood, Forest would need to engage in guesswork in order to determine if it was engaging in activities that violated the injunction, since the order itself was little more than a recitation of the law. Accordingly, vacatur of the preliminary injunction was necessary because it lacked the requisite specificity.

From our friends at JurisNotes.com

Global Water Group, Inc. v. Atchley (Tex App 1/9/08) Decision Short Summary
Global sued Atchley and Aspen Water, Inc. for misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Atchley and Aspen and this court affirmed.

In the 1990s, Global's predecessor created the first successful mobile self-powered, self-contained water purification system. Global's predecessor treated this system and associated products as trade secrets and required all employees to sign confidentiality agreements. Atchley was president of this entity until he resigned in 1994. In 1995, all assets of this entity were acquired by Global. In 1999, Atchley began manufacturing portable self-sustained water purification systems through his company, Aspen. While a jury found in favor of Global, the court granted the JNOV motion filed by Atchley and Aspen.

It was undisputed that the steps required for water purification were commonly known. What Global claimed as its trade secrets were: 1) the formula for the compound it used in the absorption step; and 2) the sequence of the process it used to purify water. Global used KDF, a water purifying substance, and carbon in the absorption step. It was undisputed that other makers of water purification systems used both carbon and KDF. It was the particular ratio of KDF to carbon that Global asserted as a trade secret. Global, however, claimed no trade secret in any discrete formula, but rather in an approximate ratio of KDF to carbon. But there was no evidence showing that Global's formula was valuable or that it gave Global a competitive advantage. Nor was there any indication of whether Global's efforts to keep its purported trade secrets from being generally known were successful. Further, the imprecise nature of the information weighed heavily against it being a trade secret. There was no discrete formula at issue here, but only an approximate mix of two well-known substances commonly used together. That no discrete formula was claimed also raised a problem in determining whether Atchley or Aspen actually used the purported trade secret. Global did not contend that Aspen used the same formula, but only that its formula was similar. While the products were similar in certain aspects, there were also differences.

Catherine Dominguez - San Antonio Business Journal

The FBI is ramping up its efforts locally and across the country to protect the technology and trade secrets of American businesses and universities through a recently unveiled program focused on economic espionage.

By Benjamin J. Romano
Seattle Times technology reporter

Two weeks ago, Microsoft ponied up $1.2 billion to buy a leading player in enterprise search, a growing corner of the market that isn't dominated by Mountain View. Yet.

If the deal goes through as expected in the second quarter, the acquisition of Fast Search & Transfer, based in Oslo, Norway, will rank among the six largest in Microsoft history.

...

Only 21 percent of the 450 enterprise companies she surveyed had bought some form of search or categorization technology. Another 21 percent plan to in the next two years.

Hundreds of small companies are working on software and systems to scour a business' digital resources and quickly bring back relevant information, regardless of where or how it is stored.

They provide different solutions for different scenarios.

The call-center worker with a customer on hold needs a quick, definitive answer, not a list of 200 documents to thumb through.

A biotechnology researcher may want a brain dump of everything the company knows about a particular molecule, and everything that's been published about it in scientific journals.

This kind of search has to be able to peer into data stores and applications from different vendors and find information in "every format under the sun," Feldman said.

The tools also have to be able to limit access to certain information within a company — think human-resources data or trade secrets.

Marketwire

A preliminary injunction hearing was held on Tuesday January 15, 2008 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California with the honorable Judge Ronald Whyte presiding. The plaintiff in the case is Verigy Ltd. and two of the defendants are Silicon Test Systems Inc. and Silicon Test Solutions LLC. Verigy's suit (C07-04330) alleges misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition among other allegations.

654 S.E.2d 225, 7 FCDR 3467 (Ga. 2007)

A former employee sued employer for abusive litigation after jury verdict in favor of employer in employer's action against employee for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims was reversed on appeal. The State Court, Gwinnett County, Lewis, J., pro hac vice, entered summary judgment in favor of employer, and employee appealed.

The Court of Appeals of Georgia., Adams , J., held that employer's prior lawsuit against employee was not without substantial justification.

16 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 47 (Fall 2007)
Tracey, Alan J.

About:
Mr. Alan Tracey received dual B.S. degrees in Production Operations and Procurement from Bowling Green State University. Mr. Tracey received his J.D. from The Ohio State University School of Law in 1994 and has been practicing law in the state of California since 1994.
Abstract:
Trade secret business information is a valuable commodity. Companies that fail to protect it and the intellectual capital that it represents quickly lose ground to the competition. One of the most versatile and commonly used documents to protect that information is a nondisclosure agreement or clause covering confidentiality obligations in an employment or business contract. These agreements seek to bar trade secret information from being disclosed, but more than that, these agreements are used as an important—and sometimes the sole—factor a court considers when evaluating whether the information at issue qualifies as trade secret information. They are therefore protected by the laws governing trade secrets or exist as another kind of information that is not protected by such laws. This article first provides an overview of the evolution of trade secret law. It then follows with a summary of the view taken by many courts that the use of a nondisclosure agreement to protect information meets the requirement under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) that an owner of information must make efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, even when little or no other efforts are made. This article further explores the common reasons that plaintiffs in trade secret disputes often ignore the nondisclosure agreement that initially served to establish the information, as a trade secret case will yield more liberal remedies than a breach of contract case brought under the nondisclosure agreement. In such cases it is common that courts may loosely apply contract interpretation principles, and contractual provisions which limit a contracting party’s liability may be ignored. Finally, this article suggests that the practitioner must account for these unusual risks when drafting agreements that apply to the exchange of trade secret information.

U.S. District Court, Northern District, Chicago
VerdictSearch Weekly

Verdict-Plaintiff : the jury found that the Roto Zip was a trade secret; that Sears breached the non-disclosure agreement; that Sears misappropriated trade secrets; and that the misappropriation was willful, wanton and malicious. Jurors awarded RRK $21,363,585.

According to RRK, Sears introduced the All-in-One Cutting Tool starting at $59. Plaintiff's counsel argued that Sears' low price caused customers not to buy Roto Zip's spiral saw/plunge base router combination power tool in the quantities that RRK expected. Plaintiffs' counsel argued that as a direct result of Sears' violation of the NDA and misappropriation of Roto Zip's trade secrets, the plaintiff's sales at Sears decreased dramatically from $41 million in 2000, to $24 million in 2001, to $8.5 million in 2002, and to $615,000 in 2003. RRK sought $11.2 million in lost profits and $1.7 million for unjust enrichment, which was based on calculations by economist Joseph Gemini.

Tom Henderson Don't send any text messages or e-mails you don't want to see in the newspaper was a lesson Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick learned this week, and one repeated by area attorneys and business consultants. "I advise everyone and practice it absolutely. I don't send anything I don't want public," said Mark Malven, leader of the technology transaction practice in the Bloomfield Hills office of Dykema Gossett P.L.L.C. "I don't put anything sensitive into an e-mail or a text message that I wouldn't want to see in the newspaper. Executives have come crashing to the ground. Companies get ruined." ... Cendrowski said he advises clients to be particularly careful not to text message or use wireless e-mail to discuss such things as business intelligence or trade secrets. Savvy snoops with the right equipment within broadcast range can easily capture those messages.

District Court of Texas, 345th Judicial District, Travis County

Verdict-Plaintiff: the jury found that LSI Logic violated the Texas Theft of Trade Secrets Statutes and awarded Silicon Space $18 million.

Silicon Space asked for $17 million to $24 million, which allegedly represented the value of the trade secrets and the time-cost savings that LSI Logic received from having access to the technology.

In 2004, plaintiff Silicon Space Technologies Corp., which creates technologies to protect computer chips from radiation, entered into talks with software technology provider LSI Logic Corp., Milpitas, Calif., about a potential business partnership. However, the talks fell through, and no deal was signed.
Silicon Space then sued LSI Logic, claiming violations of Texas Theft of Trade Secrets Statutes.

Silicon Space argued that, 18 months after the negotiations fell through, the company discovered that LSI Logic used the information about the technology that it learned from Silicon Space on its own products.

Hennepin County District Court, 4th

Verdict-Plaintiff: the jury found that PDHC breached the Jan. 1, 1999, amended and restated service agreement, and that PDG did not ratify the breach, nor was the breach excused by a mutual mistake of an important fact as to which PDHC did not assume the risk. The jury found that PDHC's breach of the service agreement directly caused damage to PDG and awarded it $9,413,397.

Jurors found that PDHC breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with PDG and that it caused $11.5 million in damages.

Our blog yesterday was #200. Please let me know whether the news I am providing you is of use or interest. Also, let me know any other trade secret news or information you might like to see on the blog. Thanks for tuning in. Jon Cavicchi jcavicchi@piercelaw.edu

Jonathan Kaminsky

It's an ugly clash of two local media powers desperate for competitive advantage. The accusations abound: A violated non-compete agreement. Stolen trade secrets. Lies spread about the rival going out of business.

Scott Westcott

Unlikely to enforce: California bans nearly all employee noncompetes; a company can be sued for forcing employees to sign one. Georgia's and Wisconsin's laws are nearly as strict--if a single item in an agreement is overbroad, the whole thing gets tossed. Other states in which noncompetes rarely fly include Colorado and Oregon; the latter passed restrictive legislation that went into effect January 1, 2008.

Reluctant to enforce: In most states, courts will enforce noncompetes--but only if the agreements are narrowly drafted to protect trade secrets or customer relationships. Some states allow the courts to "blue pencil" the agreement, which means scratching out an unenforceable term. Other states allow the courts to revise an agreement to make it more reasonable. "Reluctant" states include New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois.

Likely to enforce: Florida law makes noncompetes presumptively enforceable. Other states more likely to enforce noncompetes include Texas, Michigan, and New Jersey.

Reporter: Stuart Peck
New Media Producer: Nick Storm

This after a Kentucky man, charged with drunk driving, questions the accuracy of one of their products, a breathalyzer test.

Owensboro police officer Brad Martin has made his share of DUI arrests in his career. Martin says the intoxilyzer 5000 is an important tool to put drunk drivers in jail. That tool is being questioned and the company, CMI Inc. of Owensboro, could be forced to turn over trade secrets to the courts.

The Kentucky Court of Appeals has overturned two lower court rulings in a case between CMI and a defendant who wants proof of the machine's accuracy. 14 News talked to both the Daviess County Sheriff's Department and the Owensboro Police Department. Neither agency questions the accuracy of the machine.

Clarion Ledger

A lawyer appointed to evaluate evidence in a trade-secrets lawsuit has resigned, and the reasons he gave raise more questions about the behind-the-scenes role of former longtime District Attorney Ed Peters in a case heard by his protege, Hinds County Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter.

Advertisement
"I stepped up to the plate and did what I needed to do," Madison lawyer Larry Latham said Tuesday in explaining why he turned in his resignation as special master in the Eaton Corp. v. Jeffry Frisby lawsuit.

The case is one of at least three lawsuits the FBI is now examining involving DeLaughter and Peters as part of its continuing investigation into Mississippi's judicial bribery scandal.

Neither Peters nor DeLaughter could be reached for comment. DeLaughter has said he welcomes the investigation, has nothing to hide and never took a bribe.

TOM BAYLES

SARASOTA -- Alpha Mining Systems, a global manufacturer of industrial mining tires, has won a $19.7 million judgment against a former employee for handing out the company's trade secrets in 2005.

Sam Vance, Alpha's sales and marketing manager at the time, was found guilty by 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Robert W. McDonald Jr. of giving a pair of overseas competitors everything they needed to steal business away from the Sarasota company.

Josh Verges

Sioux Falls-based Poet has reached a settlement with a former employee who it says violated noncompete and trade secret agreements.

Anthony Simpson resigned as general manager of Poet's Caro, Mich., plant in July after accepting a job as vice president of operations for Ethanex Energy in Basehor, Kan., Poet said in a civil complaint filed in August in federal court.

Simpson had signed an agreement that he wouldn't work in the industry for two years after leaving Poet, the company said. Other agreements involved the disclosure of Poet's trade secrets.

Despite the comment threads already going on, there are a few reasons why C/C++ isn't being used:

...

3) Most interesting to me is that by distributing code in a bytecode form, you get platform independence without having to distribute source. Device manufacturers can write a driver, distribute in bytecode, and not have to compile for every architecture, kernel version, etc. Nor do they have to distribute source, which somewhat protects trade secret interests (I know, bytecode can be easily reverse-engineered. But it's a "see no evil" effort, in my opinion).

Hope that made vague sense.

SearchitRight.com also offers an ethics course regarding a hot topic in the legal arena; competitive intelligence. "Ethical Considerations for Attorneys Conducting Competitive Intelligence" is for attorneys who need to get a clear understanding of ethical boundaries when it comes to law firms conducting or advising of competitive intelligence activities for themselves or their clients. Lovell's LLP, Mark Halligan, one of the leading trade secret attorneys in the world, talks about competitive intelligence and its relevance to law firms and the attorney's ethical role.