Relevant to Canon trying to intimidate CanonRumors.com into not using the word Canon in a domain, is the case where Apple sued ThinkSecret.com for "knowing misappropriation and disclosure of Apple's trade secrets".
The lawsuit was later settled amiably as revealed here, but this older article has more information.
"...the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by about 45 states, including California, prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements.
"Just because you don't have a relationship with the company doesn't necessarily immunize you, if you publish what you reasonably should have known was a trade secret," Beckerman-Rodau said. "The First Amendment has been asserted more and more against intellectual property rights, but it's not faring well. Most courts haven't accepted it."
Isn't that a strange law? So if somebody mails me to tell me that Nikon will reveal a 300-megapixel pocket camera next week, and I publish it (and it's true), I am liable to get sued by Nikon? That's just nasty.
If a company wants something to be secret, that's their problem, it's not mine. If I have signed an agreement with Apple to keep something secret, that's another kettle of fish. But seriously, how can somebody be legally bound to protect somebody else's secrets?
Update: "Noisy" has a perspective, based on Chuqui's comment.
I don't know, I don't really see how it hurts a company, except it's pride, by news of a product being leaked a few days early. I mean sometimes products are announced months before release. Hell, Samsung just announced a product which they say will be available in the spring of 2010!
Update:
Bert added:
Assume for an instant that you are working under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) for a client, say ABC corporation. You hit a snag and need some advice from Charlie. Normally, before disclosing any significant amount of sensitive information to Charlie, you should have him sign an NDA protecting you and your client. In practice however, pulling red tape every time you need to talk to a colleague would quickly bring everything to a halt, so you don't always do it. Military projects are the exception, everything bears red tape; as a result, being 3~5 years late on delivery is pretty much average...
It has therefore been acknowledged by the courts that it is normal and in your client's best interests to allow you to communicate freely with colleagues, within reasonable limits.
Now, what if Charlie can't be trusted? He is not bound by an NDA with your client, so he could, in theory widely diffuse any information you gave him. This is where the law you are referring to comes in play: if you clearly stated to Charlie that the information is confidential, then he can be held accountable for disclosing the said information.
The world and the American justice system being what they are, laws like this one, which exist only to plug holes in other laws, will be perverted by literal interpretation and end up being misused in a wide variety of contexts.
Isn't knowingly passing on trade secrets a bit like knowingly passing on stolen goods?
ReplyDeleteIf you and some blabbermouth already know about it, then it isn't a secret, is it? Define 'secret'...
ReplyDeleteThe dictionary sez:
ReplyDelete"Something kept hidden from others or known only to oneself or to a few."
Assume for an instant that you are working under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) for a client, say ABC corporation. You hit a snag and need some advice from Charlie. Normally, before disclosing any significant amount of sensitive information to Charlie, you should have him sign an NDA protecting you and your client. In practice however, pulling red tape every time you need to talk to a colleague would quickly bring everything to a halt, so you don't always do it. Military projects are the exception, everything bears red tape; as a result, being 3~5 years late on delivery is pretty much average...
ReplyDeleteIt has therefore been acknowledged by the courts that it is normal and in your client's best interests to allow you to communicate freely with colleagues, within reasonable limits.
Now, what if Charlie can't be trusted? He is not bound by an NDA with your client, so he could, in theory widely diffuse any information you gave him. This is where the law you are referring to comes in play: if you clearly stated to Charlie that the information is confidential, then he can be held accountable for disclosing the said information.
The world an the American justice system being what they are, laws like this one, which exist only to plug holes in other laws, will be perverted by literal interpretation and end up being misused in a wide variety of contexts.