This thesis is as an attempt to overview the forms of trade secret protection presently in place in the United States, Canada, the European Union and Romania. These jurisdictions were selected because they present a diversity of legal background and a variety of forms of trade secret protection. / The introductory chapter deals with the historical and economic backgrounds of the trade secret protection. An overview of trade secret protection at international scale is also provided. The thesis compares the forms of trade secret protection available in each jurisdiction. Based on the survey, the thesis comes to an answer of the question of "What is the most appropriate form of trade secrets protection?". / The final chapter provides a number of conclusions and recommendations.

No description available.

University of Macau / Faculty of Law

This study examines the impact of U.S. states’ staggered adoption of the inevitable disclosure doctrine (IDD) on rival companies’ auditor choice. I posit that, in states where the IDD limits employee mobility among rival companies, the IDD adoption exogenously increases the costs of disclosing proprietary information through other channels. I find that on average peer companies do not show any changes in the probability of audit office sharing after the companies’ headquarter states adopt the IDD. I also find that companies with trade secrets respond to IDD adoption by avoiding audits conducted by the same audit office as their competitors’ audit office, supporting the proprietary cost hypothesis. The results are robust not only in various levels of auditor sharing but also after I incorporate factors including Mergers and Acquisitions, SOX, and differentiations of IDD adoption and rejection. Cross-sectional results related to Big N auditors suggest that peer companies with trade secrets that hire Big N auditors increase audit office sharing because Big N auditors’ higher levels of reputation, higher litigation costs, and deep pockets alleviate concerns of potential information leakage through audit office sharing in the post IDD adoption periods. My cross-sectional results related to audit committee experts show that peer companies with trade secrets respond to IDD adoption by engaging in more frequent audit office sharing when they have industry experts and accounting financial experts on audit committees. Supervisory financial expertise on audit committees of peer companies with trade secrets does not seem to affect the probability of audit office sharing after the IDD adoption. To my knowledge, this study is the first to document the causal effect of proprietary information costs on audit office choices of U.S. companies with trade secrets. / Business Administration/Accounting

A legally protectable trade secret is secret information which is applicable in trade or industry, in respect of which the owner has the will to keep it secret, which has economic value, and which is concrete enough to be embodied in a tangible form and to exist separately form its owner. A comparative study reveals that while trade secrets can be infringed in three ways - namely unauthorized acquisition, use and disclosure - contemporary legal systems differ in respect of both the ambit and juridical bases of protection against such infringing conduct. The legal protection of trade secrets is promoted by the recognition of a subjective right to the trade secret. This right is an intellectual property right independent of statutory intellectual property rights like patent rights and copyright, the common law intellectual property right to goodwill, and the personality right to privacy. In South African private law, trade secrets can be adequately protected by the application of general delictual and contractual principles. Delictual wrongfulness of trade secret misappropriation is constituted by an infringement of the right to the trade secret. Thus any act that interferes with the powers of use, enjoyment and disposal exercised by someone with a subjective right to that trade secret, is, in the absence of legal grounds justifying such interference, wrongful. Patrim·onial loss caused by both intentional and negligent infringement of trade secrets should be actionable under the actio legis Aquiliae. Wrongful trade secret infringements can - also in the absence of fault on the part of the infringer - be prevented by an interdict. Protection of trade secrets is not restricted to the contexts of either unlawful competition, or fiduciary relationships. Trade secret protection is on a sound footing in South African law, compares favourably with the position in other legal systems, and is in step with the international agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights to which South Africa is a signatory nation. / Private Law / LL.D. (Private Law)

A legally protectable trade secret is secret information which is applicable in trade or industry, in respect of which the owner has the will to keep it secret, which has economic value, and which is concrete enough to be embodied in a tangible form and to exist separately form its owner. A comparative study reveals that while trade secrets can be infringed in three ways - namely unauthorized acquisition, use and disclosure - contemporary legal systems differ in respect of both the ambit and juridical bases of protection against such infringing conduct. The legal protection of trade secrets is promoted by the recognition of a subjective right to the trade secret. This right is an intellectual property right independent of statutory intellectual property rights like patent rights and copyright, the common law intellectual property right to goodwill, and the personality right to privacy. In South African private law, trade secrets can be adequately protected by the application of general delictual and contractual principles. Delictual wrongfulness of trade secret misappropriation is constituted by an infringement of the right to the trade secret. Thus any act that interferes with the powers of use, enjoyment and disposal exercised by someone with a subjective right to that trade secret, is, in the absence of legal grounds justifying such interference, wrongful. Patrim·onial loss caused by both intentional and negligent infringement of trade secrets should be actionable under the actio legis Aquiliae. Wrongful trade secret infringements can - also in the absence of fault on the part of the infringer - be prevented by an interdict. Protection of trade secrets is not restricted to the contexts of either unlawful competition, or fiduciary relationships. Trade secret protection is on a sound footing in South African law, compares favourably with the position in other legal systems, and is in step with the international agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights to which South Africa is a signatory nation. / Private Law / LL.D. (Private Law)

University of Macau / Faculty of Law

In hierdie proefskrif is die belangrike rol wat inligting tans en toenemend in die samelewing speel ondersoek, om te beklemtoon hoe noodsaaklik dit tans is om `n misdryf wat die wederregtelike en opsetlike verkryging van inligting strafbaar sal reël, te verorden. Die rol wat industriële spioenasie in die verband speel word uitgelig. As gevolg van die bepaalde onliggaamlike aard van inligting kan inligting nie soos liggaamlike eiendom `n persoon ontneem word nie. Inligting word gewoonlik bloot gekopieer en die oorspronklike houer van die inligting behou die inligting hoewel die dader ook die inligting verkry. Die gemeenregtelike misdaad van diefstal maak dus nie voorsiening vir die diefstal van inligting waar die inligting bloot gekopieer of gedupliseer is nie. Om te bepaal hoe hierdie bepaalde probleem in ander lande se regstelsels aangespreek word en om kennis op te doen oor hoe dit in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg aangespreek behoort te word, is die strafregtelike bepalings en selfs nie-strafregtelike bepalings in lande soos Engeland, Amerika, Kanada en Nederland ondersoek. Ten einde vas te stel welke inligting deur die strafreg beskerm behoort te word, is selfs sekere nie-strafregtelike bepalings van vermelde lande en van die Suid-Afrikaanse reg nagegaan. Insigte is verkry oor welke elemente sodanige inligting aan moet voldoen en `n definisie van beskermwaardige inligting word aanbeveel. Vir hierdie doel is `n nuwe begrip van beskermwaardige inligting geskep. Die redes waarom diefstal van inligting nie in Suid-Afrikaanse en die ander lande se regstelsels nie erken word nie, is bespreek. Die wyse waarop die gemeenregtelike misdaad van diefstal na die diefstal van onliggaamlike geld uitgebrei is, is ondersoek waarna `n aanbeveling gemaak word oor hoe die definisie van diefstal uitgebrei kan word om ook ander onliggaamlike objekte in te sluit. As gevolg van die bepaalde aard van inligting kan die gemeenregtelike definisie van diefstal nie uitgebrei word om inligting as `n objek in te sluit nie en word `n statutêre misdryf van diefstal van inligting voorgestel. / Jurisprudence / LL. D.

In hierdie proefskrif is die belangrike rol wat inligting tans en toenemend in die samelewing speel ondersoek, om te beklemtoon hoe noodsaaklik dit tans is om `n misdryf wat die wederregtelike en opsetlike verkryging van inligting strafbaar sal reël, te verorden. Die rol wat industriële spioenasie in die verband speel word uitgelig. As gevolg van die bepaalde onliggaamlike aard van inligting kan inligting nie soos liggaamlike eiendom `n persoon ontneem word nie. Inligting word gewoonlik bloot gekopieer en die oorspronklike houer van die inligting behou die inligting hoewel die dader ook die inligting verkry. Die gemeenregtelike misdaad van diefstal maak dus nie voorsiening vir die diefstal van inligting waar die inligting bloot gekopieer of gedupliseer is nie. Om te bepaal hoe hierdie bepaalde probleem in ander lande se regstelsels aangespreek word en om kennis op te doen oor hoe dit in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg aangespreek behoort te word, is die strafregtelike bepalings en selfs nie-strafregtelike bepalings in lande soos Engeland, Amerika, Kanada en Nederland ondersoek. Ten einde vas te stel welke inligting deur die strafreg beskerm behoort te word, is selfs sekere nie-strafregtelike bepalings van vermelde lande en van die Suid-Afrikaanse reg nagegaan. Insigte is verkry oor welke elemente sodanige inligting aan moet voldoen en `n definisie van beskermwaardige inligting word aanbeveel. Vir hierdie doel is `n nuwe begrip van beskermwaardige inligting geskep. Die redes waarom diefstal van inligting nie in Suid-Afrikaanse en die ander lande se regstelsels nie erken word nie, is bespreek. Die wyse waarop die gemeenregtelike misdaad van diefstal na die diefstal van onliggaamlike geld uitgebrei is, is ondersoek waarna `n aanbeveling gemaak word oor hoe die definisie van diefstal uitgebrei kan word om ook ander onliggaamlike objekte in te sluit. As gevolg van die bepaalde aard van inligting kan die gemeenregtelike definisie van diefstal nie uitgebrei word om inligting as `n objek in te sluit nie en word `n statutêre misdryf van diefstal van inligting voorgestel. / Jurisprudence / LL. D.