A blog of trade secrets news, verdicts, and resources

November 2008 Archives

In June 2005, plaintiff Lifetechniques Inc., a San Antonio business owned by Vesta Brue, entered into a three-year employment agreement with Karen West. West was hired to serve as president of the division MedSignals, wherein she would help develop and market the MedSignals product from an office in West Palm Beach. Most of Lifetechnique's income comes from National Institutes of Health grants for the development and commercialization of health care products. West was fired on Aug. 18, 2006, allegedly because she had abused her expense account by submitting claims for reimbursement for personal items.
Lifetechniques sued West on Aug 23, claiming she refused to return company property. The amended complaint alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, civil theft, tortuous interference with business relationships, and misappropriation of trade secrets.
West denied liability and counterclaimed for the balance of her three-year contract for unpaid wages, vacation pay and unreimbursed business expenses charged to her personal credit card.
According to defense counsel, Lifetechniques had failed to have the employment agreement drafted by an attorney, and it contained no escape or early termination clause. West claimed that at the end of the first year, the company replaced her, and then alleged wrongdoing by West to try to escape liability for the two remaining years on West's contract. West claimed that she would have returned the property owned by Lifetechniques, but that she left the country for a scheduled three-week vacation immediately following her termination. West claimed that she was sued while out of the country before she had the opportunity to return the items that belonged to the employer.
Two weeks before trial, after extensive discovery of financial records and deposition testimony of other former employees of Lifetechniques, the plaintiff dropped its claims for civil theft, misappropriation of trade secrets and tortious interference.

From our friends at PeantentlyO

BPAI: "Programmed Computer Method" Not Patentable Subject Matter

Posted: 26 Nov 2008 04:31 AM CST

Ex parte Halligan (BPAI 2008)

Halligan's patent application claims a "programmed computer method" that operates to identify trade secret information. (Claim 119). In essence, the computer program has the common law rules of trade secrets hardcoded, and those rules are applied to determine whether particular information is a "trade secret." Applying the machine-or-transformation test of Bilski, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) rejected Halligan's claims as lacking patentable subject matter under 35 USC § 101.

Under Bilski, "[a] claimed process is surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing." To avoid preemption the Federal Circuit emphasized that "the use of a specific machine or transformation of an article must impose meaningful limits on the claim's scope to impart patent-eligibility;" that "the involvement of the machine or transformation in the claimed process must not merely be insignificant extra-solution activity;" and that the transformation "must be central to the purpose of the claimed process."

Transformation: As in Bilski, the transformation here involves legal rights and "does not represent physical and tangible objects." Therefore, it fails the transformation prong of the test.

Machine: Claim 119's only tie to a machine is the preamble statement that the method is a "programmed computer method." The BPAI listed several reasons why that recitation is insufficient to satisfy the machine prong of Bilski:

"This recitation fails to impose any meaningful limits on the claim's scope as it adds nothing more than a general purpose computer that has been programmed in an unspecified manner to implement the functional steps recited in the claims. Were the recitation of a "programmed computer" in combination with purely functional recitations of method steps, where the functions are implemented using an unspecified algorithm, sufficient to transform otherwise unpatentable method steps into a patent eligible process, this would exalt form over substance and would allow pre-emption of the fundamental principle present in the non-machine implemented method by the addition of the mere recitation of a "programmed computer." Such a field-of-use limitation is insufficient to render an otherwise ineligible process claim patent eligible."

Means-Plus-Function language: A second set of claims were directed to the "programmed computer." Functional elements of the software were described as "means for ___." The structure of a means plus function element is presumably particular enough to constitute a "particular machine." However, the BPAI expressly did not reach that issue - rather, the Board rejected those claims under 35 USC § 112 as indefinite for lacking any description of particular structure in the specification. Following Aristocrat, the opinion noted that software-type means should include a disclosure of an algorithm. "The Appellant has failed to disclose any algorithm, and thus has failed to adequately describe sufficient structure, for performing the recited functions of claims 1 and 121 so as to render the claims definite."


European Intellectual Property Review Case Comment

Federica Santonocito & Agata Sobol.

Case: H v B (App (Turin))

Reports the Turin Court of Appeal decision in H v B on whether a judge erred in dismissing a patent infringement claim relating to machines used for sorting and packing products. Details the court's assessment of the requirements for protecting information or trade secrets under Italian law, and their application to drawings of the machines in question.

By Sonia Baldia

Despite recent growth in other emerging markets, India continues to be the number one destination for outsourcing services involving information technology and business processes ("IT/BPO services"). In recent years, moreover, a new model of global sourcing to India known as knowledge process offshoring or "KPO" has taken hold in addition to the remarkably successful Indian market for IT/BPO services, with India emerging again as the global KPO"hot spot." KPO involves the offshore outsourcing of knowledge-driven or "high end" processes that require specialized domain expertise, including such varied areas as R&D, insurance underwriting and risk assessment, financial analysis, data mining, investment research, statistical analysis, tax preparation, engineering and design, animation, graphics simulation, medical services, clinical trials, legal services, and more. As offshoring of services to India moves up the value chain from IT/BPO services to KPO, protection of intellectual property (IP), including any trade secrets and confidential information, that may be transferred or created in India becomes an even more critical concern for the offshoring customer. IP concerns must be addressed knowledgeably to achieve and maximize the benefits and strategic incentives the offshoring model offers without losing control of critical customer IP. This article raises some of the key issues that any offshoring customer should carefully assess so as to mitigate the risks associated with offshoring trade secrets and other confidential information to India.
When offshoring a "high end" process or functionality to India, often much of the knowledge transferred offshore (for example, source code, formulae, designs, specifications, or experimental data) is confidential in nature and generally not suitable for local registrations in the form of patents. It, therefore, becomes critical for the US customer to seriously consider - before it begins the offshoring process -- how it will best protect this information to maintain its competitive advantage. A primary concern for a US customer should be the Indian service provider's ability and willingness to safeguard the customer's trade secrets and other commercially valuable confidential information against misappropriation, misuse, unauthorized disclosure, sabotage or theft.
To continue reading click here.

Cover Story: 'Hammer' Time

By Linda Moss

How One Consultant Extracts Cold Cash From Cable Ops In Retransmission-Consent Battle

Lammers is a big player in the high-stakes battle between broadcasters and cable operators across the nation as, under federal law, thousands of retransmission-consent deals are set to expire Dec. 31. At the core of the debate is this simple question: How much should the signals of free, over-the-air broadcasts be valued? Cable operators say prices will ultimately increase for consumers.

In court documents, Nexstar argued that Lammers had been privy to its "trade secrets" regarding retransmission-consent negotiations. "The only 'negotiation strategy' I was ever aware of was quite simple: To cut the best deal possible," Lammers said in his affidavit. "I successfully negotiated many retransmission contracts for Nexstar. My success was the product of shrewd bargaining skills, tough negotiating tactics, and a healthy dose of common sense. There was nothing secret, confidential or magic about it."

To continue reading this interesting article from Multichannel News click here.

SRP has big plans, but keeps them secret

By Ryan Randazzo
The Arizona Republic

Salt River Project is working on something big - a coal or nuclear power plant, a large natural-gas plant, or maybe something else, but the ideas are secret.

SRP's power panel was going to discuss the topic Tuesday during a public meeting, but kicked a reporter out of the room when the board members present decided to have their discussion in private, which is allowed if they were to discuss "trade secrets or privileged or confidential commercial or financial information," or things that give competitors an advantage.

To read the complete article please click here.

By Oliver Mackson

Michael DiMase of Milford, Pa., quit his job two months ago, telling his boss at a local waste-carting company that he wasn't happy with his salary and that he wanted to leave the burgeoning New York City suburbs to "slow his life down" in western Pennsylvania.

That's according to a federal lawsuit filed last week. The suit says that DiMase did anything but slow his life down. It claims that he actually went to work for a competitor and started trying to cherry-pick his old employer's trash customers, specifically customers in Orange and Rockland counties. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in White Plains, accuses DiMase of interfering with his old employer's contracts, violating the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and "misappropriation" of trade secrets.

To continue reading this interesting article from recordonline.com, click here.

Sanctions Upheld Against Lawyer for Informing Client About Trade Secrets

By: Evan Hill
The Recorder

IP attorney told client about confidential information that had wound up in public court file.

Twelve years into a trade secrets dispute between an animal vaccine manufacturer and a former employee, lawyers for the manufacturer attempted to submit a document under seal that contained the purported secrets.

On Tuesday, California's 3rd District Court of Appeal in Wallis v. PHL Associates affirmed sanctions totaling almost $44,000 for what the former employee and her attorney, Joanna Mendoza, did next. Despite a long-standing order that excluded the parties and the public from viewing documents labeled confidential and filed under seal, Mendoza, of Sacramento, Calif.'s Malovos & Mendoza, told her client, Dale Wallis, that the document was in the public file.

To continue reading this interesting article click here.

Insuring and Securing Your Network's Data

By Joshua Gold
Top Tech News

Developing a smart data security protocol will not eliminate the risk posed by unauthorized access to private or sensitive data, but it should at least reduce it. And when the data genie does escape the bottle, risk transfer in the form of insurance coverage can hopefully soften the financial blow.

Risk managers should be working in tandem with their IT departments and in-house attorneys to protect data that is both created by the business or is entrusted to it by outside entities and individuals. One of the starting points is developing a data security protocol that establishes clear directives regarding the handling of and access to information within the organization. An important step in the process is to inventory the information possessed and determine its sensitivity. Certain categories of information call out for heightened protection, including: health information, personally identifying information of customers and employees, certain types of nonpublic financial information, trade secrets, customer lists and business processes that yield competitive advantages.

To read the complete article please click here.

Apple's new VP could cause 'irreparable harm' to IBM, says judge

By Gregg Keizer

A federal judge ordered Apple Inc.'s newest executive to leave the company just five days after starting work because he might cause "irreparable harm" to his former employer, IBM, unsealed court documents show.

In the opinion, Karas explained why he granted IBM's request for a preliminary injunction that blocked Papermaster from working for Apple, where he was to head iPod and iPhone hardware development. Last month, IBM sued Papermaster, claiming that a noncompetition agreement he signed in 2006 barred him from working for competitors for a year after leaving the company. According to IBM, Papermaster had information of "highly confidential IBM trade secrets" that would "irreparably harm" the company if he's allowed to work for Apple.

To continue reading this interesting article, please click here.

Peter Krouse
Plain Dealer Reporter

Kim to betrayed his employer and sold trade secrets to a competitor in South Korea, according to a presentencing report filed by Kim's attorney.

The information Kim handed over to SK Chemicals included the formula for making Estane, Lubrizol's leading brand of thermoplastic polyurethane, which is processed into tubing, medical garments, athletic shoes and auto parts, among other things. It's a tough but flexible material sold in pellet form and then heated.

In an interesting twist, Lubrizol bought SK Chemicals' thermoplastic polyurethane and conductive polymer business in October for an undisclosed price.

Two Silicon Valley Engineers Receive One Year Prison Sentences

By: Michael Barkoviak
Daily Tech

Ming Zhong, a permanent resident of the United States, and Fei Ye, a U.S. citizen, stole sensitive information from Sun Microsystems, Transmeta, NEC Electronics and Trident Microsystems in November 2001.

The pair was arrested at the San Francisco International Airport after attempting to leave the country so they could launch a government-supported startup with the stolen computer chip designs. Federal prosecutors did not accuse the Chinese government of having a role in the conspiracy. Zhong faces deportation after his prison sentence, and it's possible he'll face punishment from the Chinese government for cooperating with prosecutors in the U.S.

To continue reading this interesting story please click here.

Disagreement on economic impact of Depp film

By CARRIE ANTLFINGER | Associated Press Writer

The movie is a screen adaptation of Bryan Burrough's 2004 book "Public Enemies: America's Greatest Crime Wave and the Birth of the FBI, 1933-34." It describes the FBI's transformation when confronted with crime sprees by bank robbers John Dillinger, Charles Arthur "Pretty Boy" Floyd and Lester "Baby Face Nelson" Gillis.

The impact on Wisconsin's economy of the big-budget "Public Enemies" film was a nearly a wash, the state Department of Commerce reports: It brought in $5 million, which was offset by $4.6 million in tax credits the film company will receive. But the head of state's film office says the film had a much greater economic impact, closer to $18 million -- if you include the national attention the film has and will bring Wisconsin, and the tourism it generated at numerous cities where crews filmed, among other things.

The state couldn't immediately give any details on expenses, due to trade secret issues, but The AP has put in an open records request for the information.

How to Avoid Getting Sued by a Former Employer

by Meridith Levinson

Such underhanded business practices -- both the recruiting to obtain trade secrets and the knee-jerk litigation -- pose a threat to IT workers, whose specialized knowledge and skills remain in demand even during this economic downturn. IT professionals need to be careful about taking jobs with competitors because their former employers could try to sue them for "misappropriating trade secrets," even if they did nothing of the sort, says Kump, a partner who specializes in intellectual property, antitrust and trade practices law at Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert. He expects such litigation to increase as the economic downturn continues.

There's almost an unstated understanding that those employees you hire from competitors will bring intellectual property with them. That will lead to an increase in litigation. The type of claim I would expect to see is unfair competition, intentional interference and misappropriation of trade secrets.

To continue reading this interesting article published in ITworld.com, click here.

Don't Get A Patent? Plainly Ridiculous!

By: Gene Quinn
IP Watchdog

Trade secrets can provide protection, but only so long as the invention is secret and once you start distributing your invention the secret is lost. If you sell your invention or otherwise distribute your invention you have lost all trade secret rights that are associated with your invention because others will be able to see your invention, take it apart, learn about it and copy it if they want. So for anyone to suggest that trade secrets meaningfully protect inventions is misleading. Trade secrets protect information, not inventions, so do not expect that you will be able to maintain any exclusive rights to your invention once you put it into the stream of commerce if all you have is a trade secret. To be sure, trade secrets may be helpful to hide what I will call exotic information, such as knowledge that a certain brand of component works best, but trade secrets are not going to prevent anyone from copying and distributing your invention once your invention is on the market.

In 2004, plaintiff Exchequer Financial Group contacted David J. Milazzo, a consultant, to seek his recommendation for a computer software firm to write software for a planned online raw foods business. Milazzo recommended Insight 360 Degrees and Insight Enterprises, sister companies whose principals were Tracy Rowley and Robert Mungo.
Exchequer Financial entered into a contract with the companies to write the software. However, it claimed the companies did not produce the software as they were required to under the contract, and instead used trade secrets Exchequer had provided to them to produce their own software for sale.
Exchequer Financial sued Milazzo, Insight 360, Insight Enterprises, Rowley and Mungo, alleging breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets.
The defendants denied the allegations. They claimed they did not produce the software because Exchequer did not pay them as provided by the contract, and that Exchequer's claimed trade secrets were not unique enough to qualify as trade secrets.

INVISTA Sues Rhodia in Delaware for Theft of Trade Secrets

WILMINGTON, Del.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--November 13, 2008--In state court here yesterday, INVISTA filed suit against Rhodia for theft and misappropriation of INVISTA's world-leading chemical process technology.

INVISTA originally filed a claim on Aug. 15 in federal court in the Southern District of New York, outlining how Rhodia and DuPont have teamed up to misappropriate INVISTA's world-leading adiponitrile (ADN) technology and are unlawfully using INVISTA's trade secrets to expand in the nylon chemicals business.

On Nov. 6, following an Oct. 30 jurisdictional ruling by the federal court, INVISTA amended that New York federal lawsuit to focus on DuPont's misappropriation of intellectual property, unfair competition, and breach of contracts, and then filed this lawsuit in Delaware against Rhodia. The two suits seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief to halt Rhodia's and DuPont's misconduct.

"These claims are needed to stop Rhodia and DuPont from unlawfully using INVISTA's intellectual property to build an ADN manufacturing plant in Asia or elsewhere," said Mary Beth Jarvis, INVISTA spokesperson.

The INVISTA trade secrets at issue relate to its proprietary process for producing ADN, a critical intermediate chemical used in the manufacture of nylon 6,6. INVISTA bought the original technology several years ago from DuPont as part of a $4.2 billion transaction and has built upon that technology to earn a world-leading position in the manufacture of ADN, Jarvis said.

When it sold the technology, DuPont agreed not to compete against INVISTA or invest in competitors for an agreed-upon period, which has yet to expire. Public statements by Rhodia and DuPont indicate that Rhodia is using INVISTA's trade secrets to develop an ADN facility in Asia. DuPont has disclosed that it is an investor in Rhodia's ADN expansion plans. As explained in the lawsuit, Rhodia obtained unlawful access to the trade secrets in part through a France-based joint venture between affiliates of INVISTA and Rhodia.

In a separate issue going back to the 2004 agreements by which DuPont sold its textiles and interiors business to INVISTA for $4.2 billion, DuPont sued INVISTA on Tuesday in the Southern District of New York, claiming unauthorized use of trade secrets in the nylon engineering polymers business.

"INVISTA continues to fulfill all of its obligations under the various agreements related to the INVISTA purchase," said Jarvis on that issue. "DuPont specifically agreed to a 5-year non-compete in the engineering polymers market space. That non-compete period expires next spring, and until then INVISTA is not manufacturing, distributing, selling or reselling engineering polymers."

Tuesday's lawsuit is DuPont's second attempt to block INVISTA from competing in the engineering polymers market. In 2006, the Southern District of New York rejected DuPont's claims.

"This is another attempt by DuPont to call into question its contractual obligations and rights arising out of the INVISTA sale. INVISTA has and will continue to uphold its responsibilities. We expect and will press DuPont to fulfill its obligations, ranging from confidentiality and protection of intellectual property it sold to INVISTA to environmental, health and safety indemnities," Jarvis said.

In March, INVISTA sued DuPont seeking damages and a court order requiring DuPont to fulfill its contractual obligations arising from safety and environmental noncompliance while DuPont owned certain INVISTA sites.

INVISTA is one of the world's largest integrated producers of polymers and fibers, primarily for nylon, spandex and polyester applications.

An engine development company brought action against component
manufacturer for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of confidentiality and
non-disclosure agreements, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
misrepresentation and fraud. Defendants moved to dismiss or for transfer to
Eastern District of Michigan.

The District Court, Ponsor, J., adopting report and recommendation of
Neiman, Chief United States Magistrate Judge, held that:

(1) manufacturer was "transacting business" in Massachusetts;

(2) manufacturer's actions constituted action within Massachusetts; and

(3) jurisdiction in Massachusetts comported with due process.

Motion denied.

A successor corporation brought action against counsel for predecessor
corporation alleging they committed legal malpractice, breached their fiduciary
duties, and committed trade secret violations by providing a former employee with
confidential information about predecessor corporation's application for a patent.
Counsel moved to dismiss.

The District Court, William T. Hart, J., held that:

(1) successor corporation established standing, at the pleading stage, to assert
claims of legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty against counsel;

(2) successor corporation's allegations regarding the Illinois Trade Secrets Act
(ITSA) were sufficient to survive motion to dismiss; and

(3) statute prohibiting punitive damages on legal malpractice claims did not
apply to ITSA claim.

Motion granted in part and denied in part.

Shane Sutton mindful of trade secrets

By: Ron Reed

Former Australian cyclist Shane Sutton was surprised to find himself answering the door to the legendary Manchester United soccer boss and his assistants two weeks ago.

Sutton, credited as the driving force behind the British takeover of track cycling, agreed to share the secrets behind his squad's astonishing performance, which yielded nine Olympic and seven world championships this year.

Sutton's real secret weapon is, he says, the world's best sports psychiatrist, Dr Steve Peters, who has completely changed the mindset of the athletes.

To read the entire news article from The Herald Sun, click here.

Google and P&G trade secrets

Written by Rosalie Marshall

Google and Procter and Gamble today announced they have been swapping staff to increase their competitive edge.

In what the firms have codenamed the "P&G Google Exchange", three Google employees were temporarily sent to P&G and 20 P&G employees were sent in the opposite direction.

P&G employees went to Google to pick up tips on how their company can leverage online search and advertising, she added. P&G spends a relatively small amount of its ad budget online, according to media reports.

In order to read the whole text of this interesting news article from vnunet.com, click here.

New Zealand: Trade Secret Due Diligence

This pierce comes from "New Zealand: Intellectual Property Due Diligence" by Simon Rowell. The author specifically refers to trade secret due diligence which is reproduced bellow:
Trade Secret
The purpose of trade secret due diligence is to determine the existence of valuable trade secrets, determine how well those secrets have been kept and identify any potential leaks of the secret. This will involve evaluating security policies employed by the vendor, such as document shredding, document storage and access logs, site visit records and protocols, physical security measures on premises, and reviewing records of breaches of these security measures, encryption and password protection of electronic data. Confidentiality and non-compete agreements will be reviewed. Key staff may be interviewed and the whereabouts and activities of any recent ex-employees noted.
To read the entire article click here.

DHEC keeping secrets

The State

Landfill operator Chem-Nuclear had persuaded regulators to withhold many of the files, arguing the information included trade secrets. Without the records, Guild lost a court case that could have forced tougher disposal practices at the 37-year-old landfill.

Columbia lawyer Bob Guild says DHEC denied access to records showing the magnitude of pollution at a nuclear waste landfill near Barnwell.
"To say contamination records are trade secrets is just an outrage," said Guild, who has appealed the court's decision.

Guild's troubles highlight a recurring complaint about the state Department of Health and Environmental Control: that it doesn't inform the public well enough and, in some cases, deliberately withholds information that's important to the public. It's a complaint that spans the agency's 35-year history.

Obstacles to Licensing know how and trade secrets

The following pierce comes from International Trade in Technology - Licensing of Know-How and Trade Secrets by Hans Verhulst, Consultant, Centre for Promotion of Imports from Developing Countries (CBI), The Netherlands.

"Transfer of know how and trade secrets is not restricted to "technical" know how. Know how in each of the value adding activities is "fit for transfer". Production and logistical know how are the first choices when it comes to contract manufacturing.
Companies that want to increase their share in emerging markets may opt to transfer their marketing secrets and support know how to local companies in those markets in return for a royalty on sales volumes.
Unfortunately, the licensing instrument is underutilized by SMEs. For the bigger part, this is because licensors are afraid of uncertainties about the protection of their intellectual property, including trade secrets.. On the other hand, licensees are reluctant to accept the often severe restrictions that come with license agreements. These in turn are the result of licensors being overcautious to protect their interests. The vicious circle is completed.
Transfer of technology can be a remedy against the problems that proliferation of production and trade has brought along. But then again, a lot of work has to be done to make the licensing of know how and trade secrets more accessible for those who need it most."
To read the entire article click here.

Executives Charged in Trade Secret Theft

Written By: FBI

Sang Ho Shin, Dong Sik Kim and Yeon Hee Lee are residents and nationals of South Korea and were employed as executives of SK Chemicals, a multinational chemical company located in Seoul, South Korea.

The Indictment charges that from in or about late 2001 through in or about January 2008, Shin, Kim and Lee, conspired with Kyung J. Kim to steal and receive trade secrets belonging to the Lubrizol Corporation, a competitor based in Wickliffe, Ohio. The Indictment charges that they would meet with Kyung J. Kim, a Senior Research and Development Associate at Lubrizol to gather information on trade secrets regarding Thermoplastic Polyurethane and other confidential Lubrizol technology; this included Non-Halogen Flame Retardant Technology (NHFR) sold under the Estane® trade name and static control technology sold under the Stat-Rite® trade name. The Indictment alleges that Kyung J. Kim downloaded trade secrets onto an external storage device in preparation for meetings with Kim and Lee and further alleges that Kyung J. Kim communicated trade secrets and other confidential Lubrizol technology by way of handwritten facsimiles sent from his home to Sang Ho Shin.

To read the complete article posted in faxts.com, please click here.

Information Warfare Article Index

Squeezing The Chokepoint

November 17, 2008: After years of efforts by Internet security firms and volunteer "white hat" (the good guys) hackers, governments are forcing ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to stop providing essential access for Internet criminals.

Internet crime, particularly spam (unsolicited email) has become a big money maker. Because of the very low cost of sending it, you need only one response for several million spam messages, to make lots of money. But the same ISPs that host the spammers, also host operations that try to sneak into business, government and personal computers to steal stuff (bank account information, trade secrets, classified military information). As much as the bad guys try to find places to hide, they tend to congregate at unscrupulous ISPs that will charge a bit extra, and look the other way. Now these rogue ISPs are under attack, and this will slow down the Internet bandits, and increase their cost of doing business. The chase is on, and the good guys are not going to give up.
To read the complete article from strategyworld.com, click here.

Government should be open and information should flow freely

By Howard Owens
The Batavian

Often you hear people talk about how government should be run like a business, and it is a nice metaphor for reminding people that cost controls are important, and the books should be balanced, but the phrase masks a very important reality: Government is not a business.

Businesses, on the other hand, rely on competitive advantages and trade secrets to maintain profitability and ensure it can maintain and grow jobs for the people of a community. Without successful businesses, there would be no taxes to collect. That's why the freedom of information laws always enjoin government agencies to protect trade secrets when exposed during the transaction of business between a company and a government agency.

Papermaster countersues IBM in effort to join Apple

By Jim Dalrymple, Macworld.com

Papermaster contends that IBM's noncompetition agreement precludes him from working for any Business Enterprise or any major competitor of IBM. The lawsuit argues that since IBM business enterprise services and Apple's business is the design, manufacturing and marketing of consumer electronic products, the two are not major competitors.

Providing further evidence of the noncompetitive nature of the companies, Papermaster further explains that at IBM he was the vice president of Blade Development, while in his role at Apple he would be in charge of product development for the iPod and the iPhone.

The countersuit asserts the noncompetitive agreement "is unreasonably broad in that it purports to impose an unreasonably lengthy time limitation. In the world of technology, any trade secrets that Mr. Papermaster possesses would lose their value prior to the expiration of a year."

To continue reading this interesting article published in macworld.com please click here.

INVISTA Sues Rhodia in Delaware for Theft of Trade Secrets


On Nov. 6, following an Oct. 30 jurisdictional ruling by the federal court, INVISTA amended that New York federal lawsuit to focus on DuPont's misappropriation of intellectual property, unfair competition, and breach of contracts, and then filed this lawsuit in Delaware against Rhodia. The two suits seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief to halt Rhodia's and DuPont's misconduct.

"These claims are needed to stop Rhodia and DuPont from unlawfully using INVISTA's intellectual property to build an ADN manufacturing plant in Asia or elsewhere," said Mary Beth Jarvis, INVISTA spokesperson.

The INVISTA trade secrets at issue relate to its proprietary process for producing ADN, a critical intermediate chemical used in the manufacture of nylon 6,6. INVISTA bought the original technology several years ago from DuPont as part of a $4.2 billion transaction and has built upon that technology to earn a world-leading position in the manufacture of ADN, Jarvis said.

To continue reading this interesting story posted in marketwatch click here.

Halliburton: Patenting Patent Trolling to Block Patent Trolls

By Dan Slater

Myhvold, perhaps the most written-about Law Blog subject who doesn't own a law degree, is the former chief technology officer for Microsoft who's quietly amassed a trove of 20,000-plus patents and patent applications. His firm, Intellectual Ventures, is using its clout to press tech giants into costly patent-licensing deals -- making it, in other words, one of the world's largest patent trolls.

Now, the Patently-O blog tells us that, in 2007, Halliburton filed for patent protection claiming a method of "patent acquisition and assertion by a (non-inventor) first party against a second party." Patently-O writes: "It looks like the company wants to be able to sue non-inventing entities who try to patent and assert technology against a company who has been using the technology as a trade secret."

To continue reading the rest of this interesting article from the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog, click here.

DuPont sues ex-partner Invista over trade secrets

In the latest salvo in a legal battle between the two companies in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, DuPont said Invista broke a Patent and Technical Information Agreement under which Invista is not allowed to use DuPont technology to make nylon engineering resins for several years.

The lawsuit said Invista had contacted various DuPont engineering resins customers in recent months, offering for sale its manufactured nylon engineering resin products and informing them of Invista's ability to make nylon engineering resin products.

To continue reading this interesting article from Thomson Reuters please click here.

Uganda: Trade Secrets Protection bill passed

Uganda Business News

In a debate on the Trade Secrets Protection bill passed into law by Parliament October 28, Masaka municipality Member of Parliament John Baptist Kawanga decried the transaction of commercial business based on outdated legislations.

The legislator wants government to amend the Companies Act and other laws, and the domestication of international statutes to which Uganda is a signatory.

He also reiterated the need for Uganda as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to institute modern legislations on trade acceptable the world over.

The law according to the Parliamentary Legal Affairs Committee will build confidence; encourage innovation, invention and commercial investment in Uganda.

Residents voice concerns

By: Loren Genson
Gazette Staff Writer

Upset citizens appeal to City Council over red-light cameras

In a standing-room-only courtroom, more than 60 area residents voiced disapproval Monday with Chillicothe City Council's decision to install red-light cameras. Their comments ranged from polite disagreement to outright anger, but two things were clear - they believed the cameras installed at six Chillicothe intersections meant to automatically ticket red-light runners unfairly targeted law-abiding citizens.

She also had concerns about the restriction of access to how the cameras function. The contract the city signed with Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. states it is a trade secret and will not disclose the way the camera works. The $95 fee to appeal also denies people their right to due process, she added.

To continue reading this interesting article, please click here.

An engineering designer of method of manufacturing stabilizer bars for
automobiles brought actions against automobile component producer, and its parent
corporation alleging misappropriation of trade secret, breach of contract, and
promissory estoppel. The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, James G. Carr, Chief Judge, dismissed claims against parent corporation,
2006 WL 954248, and awarded summary judgment to producer, 2005 WL 2143976, 481
F.Supp.2d 869. Designer appealed.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals, McKeague, Circuit Judge, held that:

(1) genuine issue of material fact precluded summary judgment on designer's
claim for misappropriation of a trade secret against producer;

(2) district court did not err in rejecting statute of frauds defense to
engineering designer's promissory estoppel claim;

(3) genuine issue of material fact precluded summary judgment on designer's
promissory estoppel claim against producer; and

(4) district court lacked personal jurisdiction over parent corporation.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

Network World
Jon Brodkin

An ex-Intel employee accused of stealing $1 billion worth of trade secrets and using them to help rival AMD was indicted in Massachusetts Wednesday, according to news reports.

Biswamohan Pani, 33, of Worcester, Mass., was a design engineer at Intel's Hudson, Mass., offices before being hired away by AMD in June, according to the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.00A0,

Pani is accused of accessing Intel's network remotely and downloading 13 top-secret documents and other proprietary information related to methods for designing microprocessors, "including a document explaining how the encrypted documents could be reviewed when not connected to Intel's computer system," the Telegram reports.

Prosecutors say AMD was not aware of Pani's alleged thefts and did not benefit from them, the Associated Press reported. Instead, prosecutors say Pani planned to use the secrets to advance his career at AMD. The information Pani allegedly downloaded "was worth more than $1 billion in research and development costs," the Associated Press reported. Pani told investigators he downloaded the top-secret documents to help his wife, who works for Intel, the Telegram reports.

If convicted, Pani could face decades in prison and large fines for stealing trade secrets and committing wire fraud. He was first charged in August in U.S. district court in Boston with stealing trade secrets. He was indicted Wednesday by a federal grand jury on four additional counts of wire fraud. He is free on $100,000 bail.

As the industry's two leading chip-makers, Intel and AMD have a longstanding rivalry. Both Intel and AMD plan to announce new multi-core chips later this month.

Yahoo's transforms data mining with open-source Hadoop

By: Elise Ackerman

The software, called Hadoop, is part of Yahoo's massive computing grid and is transforming the way Yahoo and corporate giants such as IBM extract meaning from enormous streams of data.
Universities are also using the code - an open-source version of software Google relies on for daily operation - to train a new generation of computer scientists and engineers.

Hadoop improves the relevance of ads Yahoo shows on the internet by analysing the company's endless flow of data - now more than 10TB daily - on the fly. As users click from Yahoo Mail to Yahoo Search to Yahoo Finance and back again, Hadoop helps figure out what ad, if any, is likely to catch someone's attention.

Google quickly got on board, launching an initiative with IBM to provide universities such as Stanford, University of California, MIT and Carnegie Mellon with clusters of several hundred computers, so students could learn new techniques for parallel programming. Since Google's MapReduce was a trade secret, Google and IBM announced the students would be taught on Hadoop.

To continue reading this interesting article posted in the Australian IT, click here.

Do's and Dont's of Confidentialty Agreements

By Todd Wilson

Many growing businesses face the problem of having ideas that will give them a leg up on the competition or new products that will revolutionize their industries but lack the financial or intellectual resources to, without the assistance of partners, bring those ideas to fruition or to bring the products to market. Even more established businesses often find it necessary to supplement their own internal resources with ideas and products from other businesses. These are situations in which confidentiality agreements become an important means of intellectual property protection for such businesses.
Confidentiality agreements create a contractual relationship between the parties whereby one party agrees to disclose otherwise confidential information and the other party, in return, agrees to refrain from further disclosing that confidential information to others. If the party to whom the confidential information is disclosed breaches the contract and makes the confidential information known to others in violation of the terms of the contract, the owner of the information will have an action for breach of contract. This typically means that there is the potential for money damages to help recover the monetary damage caused by wrongful disclosure or even injunctive relief in an effort to stop ongoing disclosure. Usually, the threat of such these remedies is sufficient incentive to discourage wrongful disclosure.
It should be noted, however, that wrongful disclosure results disclosure of the confidential information, nonetheless. Once the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, the confidentiality of the information is lost forever. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to ensure that the parties with whom you enter into confidentiality agreements are credible and have processes in place to maintain the confidentiality of the information that your company discloses to those parties.
To continue reading click here.

Thousands of Tucson-area DUI cases may get boot.

Intoxilyzer 8000 may be ruled unreliable.

According to CMI Inc. documents filed by prosecutors, eight states, three police departments and one other governmental agency use the Intoxilyzer 8000. It is approved for use in six other states and three other governmental agencies. CMI is the Owensboro, Ky., maker of the Intoxilyzer 8000.

"This is going to be huge," said Tucson lawyer James Nesci, because the current machine is widely used statewide as opposed to the older device, which was used in Tucson and at a smaller agency.

Despite court orders across the country, CMI has declined to divulge the code, which defense attorneys say will show that the device is error-prone. The company has racked up more than $1 million in fines by refusing to comply with a similar Florida court order, records show.

To continue reading the rest of this interesting article from Tucson Citizen, please click here.

SALT LAKE CITY, Nov 07, 2008 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/

A jury trial was held in federal court in Utah in connection with the lawsuit (the "Intellectual Property Case") initiated by ClearOne against Biamp Systems Corporation ("Biamp"); WideBand Solutions, Inc. ("WideBand"); three of WideBand's principals - Dr. Jun Yang, who was a former ClearOne employee, Andrew Chiang, who was previously affiliated with an entity that sold certain assets to ClearOne, and Lonny Bowers; and Versatile DSP, Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants").

Accordingly, the jury awarded ClearOne approximately $3.5 million in compensatory damages and $7.0 million in punitive damages. Among other things, the jury found that all of the Defendants willfully and maliciously misappropriated ClearOne's trade secrets.

To continue reading this interesting article posted in market watch please click here.

Ex-Intel worker indicted on $1B trade secrets theft

By Jon Brodkin

An ex-Intel employee accused of stealing $1 billion worth of trade secrets and using them to help rival AMD was indicted in Massachusetts Wednesday, according to news reports.

Biswamohan Pani, 33, of Worcester, Mass., was a design engineer at Intel's Hudson, Mass., offices before being hired away by AMD in June, according to the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.

As the industry's two leading chip-makers, Intel and AMD have a longstanding rivalry. Both Intel and AMD plan to announce new multi-core chips later this month.

To continue reading this article from networkworld.com click here.

Datalogic Scanning Brings Another Lawsuit against Metrologic

EUGENE, Ore., Nov 06, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE)

Datalogic Scanning, Inc. announces that in August 2008 it commenced a lawsuit against Metrologic Instruments, Inc., a subsidiary of Honeywell International, in the United States District Courtfor the District of Oregon located in Eugene, Oregon, in which Datalogic alleges that Metrologic misappropriated trade secrets belonging to Datalogic. Datalogic's lawsuit follows a patent infringement suit filed against Metrologic in the U.S. just over two years ago, and a related patent infringement suit filed in Germany.

Datalogic's trade secret lawsuit alleges that Metrologic wrongfully and knowingly possessed and used confidential information, belonging to Datalogic, relating to costs, andmargins, as well as competitive positioning andsensitive information respecting customersfor bioptic, single plane, and other classes of scannerssold byDatalogic. Datalogic alleges that having access to this valuable information, obtained through an individual formerly employed withinDatalogic's corporate familyand then subsequently Metrologic's, gave Metrologic an unfair advantage in developing, pricing, and positioning its competitive products.

Please click here to continue reading this interesting article.

Trade Secrets Protection in India and 'Sui Generis' Trade Secret Law

Extracts from "India: Protection of Trade Secret"
by Manisha Singh Nair

Trade secrets are protected in India either through contract law or through the equitable doctrine of breach of confidentiality. It is common to insert clauses of confidential nature in a technology transfer or other license agreement to maintain the confidential nature of the subject matter, not only during the employment period of the employees and contractors but also after its termination, though for a fixed period of time. The skill, knowledge and experience of a particular profession can also be protected in certain circumstances from misuse through contractual obligations.
To protect the vast repository of Undisclosed Information and knowledge kept as trade secrets by their practitioners, India should consider a pro-active legislation under a `Sui Generis' system as provided for under Art.10bis of the Paris Convention and Article 39(2) and 39(3) of TRIPS. This step, along with provisions under breach of contract or non-disclosure agreement, would go a long way in developing a way of respecting trade secrets and undisclosed information as proprietary assets.

To read the entire article click here.

Drug Industry Trade Secrets: Speaking Fees, Education Subsidies

Posted by Jacob Goldstein

Vermont is one of the only states in the nation that requires drug makers to report their payments to doctors and other health care providers. But the state's law has a provision (or loophole, depending on your point of view) that allows companies to flag their payments as "trade secrets" that the state can't disclose to the public.

The watchdog group Public Citizen sued to get access to the hidden payments and wound up getting a bunch of details previously unseen by the public. (The state includes the trade secret payments in the aggregate data it publishes, but doesn't release the details.) The newly available figures are reported in this week's JAMA.

In order to continue reading the rest of this interesting article from health blog please click here.


Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal

Katarzyna A. Czapracka


This paper examines the divergent approaches to application of antitrust principles to trade secrets in the EU and in the U.S. The U.S. antitrust enforcers recognize the need to protect trade secrets and treat them as a type of intellectual property. By contrast, the European Commission takes the view that trade secrets do not merit the same level of deference as that accorded to intellectual property rights. In Microsoft, the Commission decided that Microsoft's refusal to disclose secret interoperability information to its competitors constituted an abuse of a dominant position because the refusal created an unfair competitive advantage for Microsoft. Moreover, as the recent controversy over the implementation of the Microsoft decision shows, the Commission position is that Microsoft does not have the right to charge royalties or control the secret interoperability information it was forced to disclose, unless such information qualifies for patent protection. The source of these divergent approaches may be the lack of harmonized EU standards of trade secret protection. Whereas U.S. antitrust authorities naturally relied on the harmonized principles of trade secrets law, the EU antitrust enforcers, lacking such uniform standards, have been using competition law to shape substantive trade secret laws. In doing so, they have undermined national trade secret protection measures and thus created a legal environment which may discourage private R&D investment and impede diffusion of technologies.

Enterprises stepping up fight against trade secrets theft

InfoWorld Daily
October 28, 2008

Jeremy Kirk

FBI veteran says the payoffs for stealing trade secrets are high and the risks of getting caught are low.

Enterprises are stepping up efforts to counter spying operations that aim to steal their trade secrets, according to a former U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation agent who now works for Xerox.

Companies such as Wal-Mart, DirecTV, and Motorola have in recent years been victimized by employees or others who stole sensitive data, said David Drab, a principal in Xerox's information and content security services section. Drab spent 27 years in the FBI fighting organized crime and economic espionage.

"The payoffs are high and the risks of getting caught are low," Drab said.

A study by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that economic espionage costs the world's top 1,000 companies £22.4 billion ($34.7 billion) annually, Drab said. Another study by the Society for Competitive Intelligence Professionals found companies spent $2 billion on spying activities in 2004.

"The secret of business is knowing something that no one else knows," Drab said. "That's hard to keep in this world. Keeping critical information is difficult to do."

Enterprises are victimized in a few different ways. One is "walk-offs," where employes steal data and found their own company. Another is "hire-offs" where other employees go and work for the one who stole the data. Those scenarios affected both Applied Materials and Qualcomm, Drab said. Airline manufacturer Boeing was damaged by an employee who was recruited by China to steal information on projects such as the Space Shuttle throughout the 1980s and early 1990s.

Spying operations are very difficult to detect, especially if the person who is carrying it out is professionally trained, Drab said. And when a company does suspect something and approaches law enforcement, they often don't know exactly what has been stolen.

Defending against espionage requires knowing who has access to product development, marketing, sales and engineering information, Drab said.

Policies and procedures for handling confidential information should be clearly communicated to employees, Drab said. In some cases, employees who have access to sensitive data should be given extra incentives for doing well since their departure with that data could be damaging.

Absent technological controls, employees should also be observed for inconsistent behavior, such as sudden lifestyle changes, frequent overseas trips, security infractions or disciplinary problems, all of which can precede an information breach.

"Espionage is a huge problem, there is no question about it," Drab said. "Too often we look for technology to solve things that can't be solved."

A Swedish company manufacturing and supplying railway systems and
services brought trade secret misappropriation action against American company,
with which it had had a licensing agreement, seeking to preliminarily enjoin
American company from undertaking certain commercial activities.

Holdings: The District Court, Jed S. Rakoff, J., held that:

(1) manufacturing drawing relating to brake unit product constituted trade

(2) Swedish company had substantial likelihood of success on merits of trade
secret misappropriation claim; but

(3) Swedish company failed to make a sufficient showing of irreparable

harm required to support injunction.

Motion granted in part and denied in part.

Arbitrator backs Fisker over Tesla in green car spat

By John Gittelsohn

In April, San Carlos-based Tesla sued Fisker, an affiliated design company Fisker Coachbuild LLC, and the founders of the company, Henrik Fisker and Bernhard Koehler, alleging that the defendants stole trade secrets and performed inferior work to gain the edge in the race to introduce an electric-powered sports car.

To continue reading this interesting story posted in Orange County Business News, click here.

The Surprising Virtues of Treating Trade Secrets as IP Rights

Mark A. Lemley
Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 358

Trade secret law is a puzzle. Courts and scholars have struggled for over a century to figure out why we protect trade secrets. The puzzle is not in understanding what trade secret law covers; there seems to be widespread agreement on the basic contours of the law. Nor is the problem that people object to the effects of the law. Rather, the puzzle is a theoretical one: no one can seem to agree where trade secret law comes from or how to fit it into the broader framework of legal doctrine. Courts, lawyers, scholars, and treatise writers argue over whether trade secrets are a creature of contract, of tort, of property, or even of criminal law. None of these different justifications have proven entirely persuasive. Worse, they have contributed to inconsistent treatment of the basic elements of a trade secret cause of action, and uncertainty as to the relationship between trade secret laws and other causes of action. Robert Bone has gone so far as to suggest that this theoretical incoherence suggests that there is no need for trade secret law as a separate doctrine at all.

In this article, I suggest that trade secrets can be justified as a form, not of traditional property, but of intellectual property (IP). The incentive justification for encouraging new inventions is straightforward. Granting legal protection for those new inventions not only encourages their creation, but enables an inventor to sell her idea. And while we have other laws that encourage inventions, notably patent law, trade secrecy offers some significant advantages for inventors over patent protection.

It seems odd, though, for the law to encourage secrets, or to encourage only those inventions that are kept secret. I argue that, paradoxically, trade secret law is actually designed to encourage disclosure, not secrecy. Without legal protection, companies in certain industries would invest too much in keeping secrets. Trade secret law develops as a substitute for the physical and contractual restrictions those companies would otherwise impose in an effort to prevent a competitor from acquiring their information.

The puzzle then becomes why the law would require secrecy as an element of the cause of action if its goal is to reduce secrecy. I argue that the secrecy requirement serves a channeling function. Only the developers of some kinds of inventions have the option to over-invest in physical secrecy in the absence of legal protection. For products that are inherently self-disclosing (the wheel, say, or the paper clip), trying to keep the idea secret is a lost cause. We don't need trade secret law to encourage disclosure of inherently self-disclosing products - inventors of such products will get patent protection or nothing. But if trade secret law prevented the use of ideas whether or not they were secret, the result would be less, not more, diffusion of valuable information. The secrecy requirement therefore serves a gatekeeper function, ensuring that the law encourages disclosure of information that would otherwise be kept secret, while channeling inventors of self-disclosing products to the patent system.

My argument has a number of implications for trade secret policy. First, the theory works only if we treat trade secrets as an IP right, requiring proof of secrecy as an element of protection. If we give the protection to things that are public, we defeat the purpose and give windfalls to people who may not be inventors (what we might call "trade secret trolls"). Courts that think of trade secret law as a common law tort rather than an IP right are apt to overlook the secrecy requirement in their zeal to reach "bad actors." Second, an IP theory of trade secrets also encourages preemption of "unjust enrichment" theories and other common-law ways courts are tempted to give private parties legal control over information in the public domain. Thus, an IP theory of trade secrets is in part a "negative" one: the value of trade secret law lies in part in defining the boundaries of the cause of action and preempting others that might reach too far.

Finally, treating trade secrets as IP rights helps secure their place in the pantheon of legal protection for inventions. The traditional conception of the tradeoff between patents and trade secrets views the disclosure function of the patent system as one of its great advantages over trade secret law. And indeed the law operates in various ways to encourage inventors to choose patent over trade secret protection where both are possible. But for certain types of inventions we may actually get more useful "disclosure" at less cost from trade secret than from patent law.

Global Crime Case: Cybercrime and Counterfeiting

By Foltz, Joan E
The Futurist

Much of the modern organized crimes are very similar to the old. The most significant transformation from the streets to cyberspace has enlarged the territory of individuals and organized groups. Enabled by the Internet, criminals can operate in cyberspace where less governance, a transnational stage, and a multitude of transactions to monitor complicate surveillance and enforcement. From counterfeiting drugs and software to identity theft and credit- card fraud, illegal transactions are increasingly infiltrating legitimate businesses where counterfeited goods and money laundering are buried in the billions of legitimate computer transactions made daily around the globe.

The following sampling of the U.S. Department of Justice prosecutions in 2007 and 2008 shows that crimes that were once national or regional now commonly cross borders and have a transnational impact on businesses and victims.

* A Boeing engineer stole trade secrets related to aerospace programs, including the Space Shuttle, the C-17 military transport aircraft, and the Delta IV rocket, to sell to the People's Republic of China.

To continue reading the rest of this interesting article posted on the istockanalyst.com webpage please click here.

Sharing Your Global Supply Chain Knowledge -- The Right Way

By Matthew B. Myers

Knowledge sharing between supply chain partners has more upsides than downsides, provided that the right kind of knowledge goes back and forth.
In global supply chains, managers consistently have struggled with sharing valuable knowledge with buyers and suppliers across borders. Both buyers and suppliers agree that sharing knowledge among supply chain partners will create more efficient supply chains and more effective organizations, leading to higher quality outputs and enhanced customer satisfaction. However, some managers think that knowledge sharing with supply chain partners has a "dark side" that can outweigh the benefits. Individual companies tend to be wary of getting too close to one another for fear of losing control, compromising trade secrets, proprietary information, and even losing revenue and competitive edge. It may even lock firms into unproductive relationships or preclude partnering with other viable firms. In this way, a firm's collaborative relationships with its supply chain partners can become a source of both opportunities and constraints.
To read the complete article click here.

More Than 145 Suspects Charged in US Export Enforcement Initiative

By Jim Kouri

On a daily basis, foreign states as well as criminal and terrorist groups seek arms, technology, and other materials to advance their technological capacity, weapons systems and, in some cases, Weapons of Mass Destruction programs. With America producing the most advanced technology in the world, it has become a primary target of these illicit technology acquisition efforts. The U.S. government, defense sector, private companies, and research institutions are routinely targeted as sources of these materials.

The items sought from America in these illicit schemes are as diverse as missile technology, nuclear technology, assault weapons, trade secrets, source code, military aircraft parts, night vision systems, and technical know-how. The improper transfer of these items poses threats to U.S. allies, U.S. troops overseas, and to Americans at home. It also undermines America's strategic, economic, and military position in the world.
To continue reading this interesting story posted in the lincolntribune.com please click here.

IBM Files Suit to Keep Chip Exec From Apple

By David Needle

Complaint says Mark Papermaster has key trade secrets about cutting edge tech that Apple shouldn't hire away.

That's one reason the computer giant has filed a lawsuit against a former executive, Mark Papermaster, to prevent him from joining Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) and honor a non-compete clause in his employment contract.

Until recently, Papermaster was IBM's vice president of microprocessor development and had been at the company for 26 years. The lawsuit claims that Papermaster signed a non-compete agreement in 2006 that stipulates that he won't go work for the competition for a year should he leave the company.
To continue reading this interesting story from InternetNews.com click here.

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from November 2008 listed from newest to oldest.

October 2008 is the previous archive.

December 2008 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.