자동등록방지를 위해 보안절차를 거치고 있습니다.
4 stars based on
Before the revision, Article 2. Unlike conglomerates with sufficient budgets to unfair competition prevention and trade secret protection act up sophisticated security systems, small businesses did not have the financial means or enough personnel to do so.
The court decision often critically damaged those small companies as information turned out to be a key component for a successful business.
As criticism grew from small enterprises and even unfair competition prevention and trade secret protection act the legal profession, the Act was revised in Januarychanging the term in Article 2. The revised Act was enforced on July 29,six months after its proclamation. Meanwhile, small business owners and lawyers remain wondering what difference could this make in upcoming trade secret cases. As they wait for a clearer example or an explanation, it seems worthwhile to take a look at the case of the United States.
However, the vagueness of this ruling has been pointed out. Naturally, scholars have maintained different opinions about how to interpret these three standards. Regardless of the vague standards, the Supreme Court occasionally tried to protect small businesses from losing their information as non-trade secrets. In the case where a small company did not properly educate its employees about security management and lacked to stabilize related company rules, High Court ruled that:.
If we require the same level of maintenance as conglomerates to small companies, it will be difficult to protect their trade secrets. Therefore, even if a small company partially dissatisfies the security management factor, on the basis that it fulfills the other two factors, and if the company did not neglect the effort to maintain or manage its trade secrets considering its size and asset, certain information would be recognized as trade secrets under the Trade Secrets Act.
The Supreme Court maintained this decision by the High Court, which means the Supreme Court stood on the same line with the above decision. Considering such number, we can assume that the chance of the court applying the generous view above to small enterprises before the revision of Trade Secrets Act was very low. Virgin Islands, as unfair competition prevention and trade secret protection act . The draft reads that:. On the other hand, public disclosure of information through display, trade journal publications, advertising, or other carelessness can preclude protection.
These factors originated from Section of Restatement of Torts which set the basic rules of trade secrets protection. There is a guidebook published by the Korean Intellectual Property Office advising what to do to meet the standard of security management, but its latest version was published in . The enforcement ordinance of Trade Secrets Act should be revised in accordance with the revision of the law to provide specific and reliable guidelines to small business owners.
The study suggested setting the standards like 1 the characteristic of the information itself, 2 economic value of the information, 3 trust relations between the owner of trade secrets and the infringer, 4 the size of assets of the trade secrets owner, 5 occurrence frequency of the infringement, 6 the money and effort spent for creating the information, etc .
This would apply especially to small unfair competition prevention and trade secret protection act with a small number of employees — in many cases friends or families who started out together — who tend to trust their members instead of writing down strict contracts with confidentiality clauses. Such small companies also often do not have enough budgets to hire security professionals or build up encryption systems. The court should provide a solid guideline unfair competition prevention and trade secret protection act provides predictability to the business owners about what would be considered as trade secrets and what procedures should be taken to protect their data assets.
CramptonMass. LevineME 79, A. Agee87 Md. In the case where a small company did not properly educate its employees about security management and lacked to stabilize related company rules, High Court ruled that: The draft reads that: Posted in Autumn