5 ms·

>If anything, Zoox used the information allegedly taken from Tesla as an example of what not to do logistically, and trade secrets law doesn't let you sue for t

by sigmar 8y ago

>If anything, Zoox used the information allegedly taken from Tesla as an example of what not to do logistically, and trade secrets law doesn't let you sue for that. Any other lawyer want to sound off on if this is right? Because it doesn't seem right. If I'm using stolen trade secrets to decide what not to do, I'm still making very good use of that information. Edit: added "other" to first sentence since original commenter is a lawyer

Konnstann 8y ago
It seems very difficult to prove that in a court of law. If you have a "smoking gun" then you probably don't need comparisons, but in the case where you don't have hard evidence proving similarity is much easier.
zwkrt 8y ago
IANAL: I would assume it depends on the situation. If I move from company A to B, and I own a database in both, it is reasonable to expect that mistakes I made at A I won't repeat at B. If A and B were pharmaceuticals and I know A secretly wasted 20b on a compound that B is considering to test, maybe this is a trade secret that I should be careful divulging. My intuition is that there is a line between "taking professional skills with you" and "trade secret".
throwaway5752 8y ago
According to gamblor956's profile, they are a lawyer.
- natch 8y ago
  There are clearly using that title for some reason. Whether they are qualified as a lawyer with expertise in the matters at hand, is another question.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
elliekelly 8y ago
Also an attorney and I read the statute differently than parent comment. The Economic Espionage Act[1] criminalizes the misappropriation of information, not the use of misappropriated information. In relevant part: > (a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to a product or service used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly— >> (1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information; [or] >> (2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information; Edit: Just saw parent comment clarified they were discussing Zoox's liability, not the former employee. In that case, subsection 3 of the above excerpt would apply: >> (3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization; I still read the statute a bit differently from parent. Liability doesn't flow from whether or not the IP was implemented by Zoox but from whether or not Zoox knew the information was stolen. Tesla will have to prove Zoox intended to obtain the proprietary information and knew it was stolen. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1832 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1832
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  Also also a lawyer. There's a number of civil and criminal sources of liability triggered by the fact situation. I think the OP is referring to the requirements for the sources which trigger 'big dollar' litigation remedies. The Fenwick memo is pretty helpful - it distinguishes between Wrongful Use and Wrongful Acquisition. Most of the big remedies require Wrongful Use to be demonstrated.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by sigmar 8y ago

Konnstann 8y ago

It seems very difficult to prove that in a court of law. If you have a "smoking gun" then you probably don't need comparisons, but in the case where you don't have hard evidence proving similarity is much easier.

zwkrt 8y ago

IANAL: I would assume it depends on the situation. If I move from company A to B, and I own a database in both, it is reasonable to expect that mistakes I made at A I won't repeat at B. If A and B were pharmaceuticals and I know A secretly wasted 20b on a compound that B is considering to test, maybe this is a trade secret that I should be careful divulging. My intuition is that there is a line between "taking professional skills with you" and "trade secret".

throwaway5752 8y ago

According to gamblor956's profile, they are a lawyer.

natch 8y ago
There are clearly using that title for some reason. Whether they are qualified as a lawyer with expertise in the matters at hand, is another question.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

elliekelly 8y ago

Also an attorney and I read the statute differently than parent comment. The Economic Espionage Act[1] criminalizes the misappropriation of information, not the use of misappropriated information. In relevant part: > (a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to a product or service used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly— >> (1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information; [or] >> (2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information; Edit: Just saw parent comment clarified they were discussing Zoox's liability, not the former employee. In that case, subsection 3 of the above excerpt would apply: >> (3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization; I still read the statute a bit differently from parent. Liability doesn't flow from whether or not the IP was implemented by Zoox but from whether or not Zoox knew the information was stolen. Tesla will have to prove Zoox intended to obtain the proprietary information and knew it was stolen. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1832 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1832

ABCLAW 8y ago
Also also a lawyer. There's a number of civil and criminal sources of liability triggered by the fact situation. I think the OP is referring to the requirements for the sources which trigger 'big dollar' litigation remedies. The Fenwick memo is pretty helpful - it distinguishes between Wrongful Use and Wrongful Acquisition. Most of the big remedies require Wrongful Use to be demonstrated.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]