tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post8098732737192104247..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: The Term of Trade Secret Protection: The Dirty Little SecretVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-48169229360179547992010-08-31T16:21:10.415+01:002010-08-31T16:21:10.415+01:00Anonymous,
Thanks for the domment. You raise the ...Anonymous,<br /><br />Thanks for the domment. You raise the more general issue of how a trade secret obligation intertwines with a non-compete undertaking. My experience is that courts are all over the map on this. I am still waiting for the article that provides a compelling conceptual framwork to deal with the issue.Neil Wilkofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04200865773480720037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-76013603240165713282010-08-31T12:06:51.116+01:002010-08-31T12:06:51.116+01:00Another reason for imposing time limits is that th...Another reason for imposing time limits is that these clauses are often contained in post-termination covenants. The courts are always prone to looking to see if post-termination covenants are too wide and restrictive and such time-limits can help in this regard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-54098858301076172952010-08-30T15:04:02.718+01:002010-08-30T15:04:02.718+01:00I agree entirely with the last paragraph of the po...I agree entirely with the last paragraph of the post. 'Balancing' is a pervasive but pernicious concept in academic IP writing. It sounds good - who could be against a 'fair balance' - but in practice the evidence needed to establish the optimal balance on the facts of any case - or even in general terms - is never available. 'Balancing' ends up being invoked arbitrarily as spurious support for whatever outcome happens to fit the author's intuitions.Normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17573687140337856397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-9036574647225227862010-08-29T19:53:44.215+01:002010-08-29T19:53:44.215+01:00This is, actually, a moot issue. The term of prote...This is, actually, a moot issue. The term of protection of trade secrets is... zero. Trade secrets are not protected in themselves. What is protected is honesty in trade, fairness in competition. Nobody is liable for obtaining a secret from another person. Only disonest means of obtaining that secret are sanctioned by law. I cannot see how the term of protection of trade secrets can be limited, unless we are ready to accept that breach of confidence, bribery, and industrial spying become somehow lawful and, ultimately, rewarded. It is not a coincidence that protection of trade secrets is the oldest component of industrial property. The Code of Hamurabi contained a provision that is repeated in footnote 10 of the TRIPS Agreement. 4,000 years later, ensuring honesty in trade is still a fundamental value.Nuno Pires de Carvalhonoreply@blogger.com