Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"Automobile companies and the military must keep secret the development of cutting-edge transportation technology to stay one step ahead of competitors and enemies. Readers will love this awesome book which describes car labs where researchers develop the latest super-secret models, and how technology experts in the military develop new ways for vehicles to go undetected.\"--Provided by publisher.

This study exploits the staggered adoption of the inevitable disclosure doctrine (IDD) by U.S. state courts as an exogenous shock that generates variations in the proprietary costs of disclosure. We find that firms respond to IDD adoption by reducing the level of disclosure regarding their customers' identities, supporting the proprietary cost hypothesis. Our results are stronger for firms in industries with a higher degree of entry threats, for firms in more volatile industries, and for firms with a lower degree of external financing dependence. Overall, this study represents one of the first efforts in identifying the causal effect of proprietary costs of disclosure on the supply of disclosure.

When approaching an analysis of a particular area of law, one must initially locate and understand the definition of its core concept. Yet in trade secret law serious obstacles impede the process. Unlike other intellectual property (IP) regimes, such as copyright and patent law, the core concepts of which are subject to unitary definitions governed by international treaties or domestic statutes, the trade secret concept has received no parallel treatment and, until recently in the United States, remained mainly defined under common law. Subtle differences in the way trade secrets were judicially conceived often generated conflicts between courts, opening the door for the application of divergent rules on similar points. This confusing background prompted the individual U.S. jurisdictions to gradually orient towards implementing statutory provisions in defining trade secrets. Despite the fact that U.S. trade secret law has since seen several statutory interventions at state and federal level, the precise meaning and definitional parameters of the concept remain elusive. This paper probes the existing trade secret definitions applicable in the U.S. via analysis of the divergent sources of law that underscored their formulation from the past until the present and identifies the challenges pertinent to their application in practice. Its aim is to analyze and compare these legal sources: first, to determine whether the current definition for the concept of a trade secret is adequate, or whether perhaps the existence of the multi-tier system impedes a party’s ability to identify trade secrets in a cross-border context; and second, to investigate whether a unanimously accepted definition under a pre-emptive statute complementary to one under an elaborated internationally binding treaty might remedy this issue.

The recently adopted Data Act (DA) introduces a novel regulatory framework governing certain data access, reuse, and portability rules in the European Union. Central to this framework is the role of trade secrets (TS), which reflects the delicate balance existing between obligations to share data and the imperative to protect confidential business information. This paper critically explores the DA’s approach to managing data that simultaneously qualify as a trade secret – a novel category we term “data secrets” – highlighting two key elements: administrative authorities and technical protection measures (TPMs). Competent national authorities, newly introduced by the DA in the lifecycle of TS, perform what could be seen as an ex-ante assessment of trade secret claims, altering traditional private enforcement dynamics. Concurrently, TPMs add a layer of protection to trade secrets through techno-regulatory means, potentially extending their property-like effects. By examining these developments within the Internet of Things (IoT) and Business-to-Government (B2G) contexts, this analysis suggests the DA effectively creates a distinct category of trade secrets, which may play a relevant role in the reshaping of the EU’s data economy. However, this evolution brings forward critical interpretative and practical questions, especially concerning administrative consistency, technical implementation costs, and impacts on market competitiveness and innovation incentives. Ultimately, data secrets represent a significant legislative innovation, requiring a rigorous evaluation to ensure balanced data transparency and confidentiality.

Includes online access to more than 7,500 pages of case synopses.Out-of-state cases under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) can help win UTSA cases, and courts are frequently required to consider out-of-state UTSA cases in state UTSA actions and in federal actions under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, where UTSA claims are often asserted. But finding out-of-state UTSA cases supporting one's claims can be daunting.This updated edition makes out-of-state UTSA cases readily accessible by analyzing all of the first 40 years of state and federal UTSA published cases (1979–2018) from the 49 UTSA adopting states, which discuss three important issues:Is the information at issue a trade secret under the UTSA?Did the defendant’s conduct constitute trade secret misappropriation under the UTSA?Is the plaintiff entitled to an injunction, damages, and/or attorney’s fees under the UTSA?The comprehensive analysis is accompanied by a clear synthesis of the UTSA case law determining the three trade secret issues above, as well as online synopses of each of the UTSA cases, organized by the type of the alleged trade secret (software, customer list, etc.), the industry involved (software, medical, etc.), and whether the trade secret owner won or lost.The Law of Trade Secret Litigation Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Second Edition is a \"must-have\" resource for trade secret litigators seeking the best published cases supporting their UTSA claims, and for others seeking to better understand UTSA case law.Praise for The Law of Trade Secret Litigation Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act\"I recently discovered one most impressive publication on trade secrets law entitled The Law of Trade Secret Litigation Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act by J. Patrick Huston. The academic effort to compile this treatise far surpasses research and resources on UTSA law and case law developments. But it is much more than a treatise or a collection of trade secret cases. It is a trade secret litigator's guide to case law and analysis on the three overriding substantive issues in trade secret litigation: (1) is the information at issue a trade secret under the UTSA; (2) did the defendant’s conduct constitute misappropriation under the UTSA, and (3) what are the appropriate remedies for misappropriation under the UTSA.This will be a go-to resource for developing federal law under the new Defend Trade Secrets Act which became effective on May 11, 2016 because the DTSA builds upon the UTSA. Trade secret litigators and Judges can now readily access and cite leading UTSA cases in emergency trade secret lawsuits by immediate reference to earlier analogous trade secret decisions readily accessible (organized by both state and type of trade secret). As a trade secret litigator and a professor teaching trade secret law for the past 23 years, I highly recommend the purchase of this phenomenal publication on trade secrets law.\"-- R. Mark Halligan, FisherBroyles, Co-author of the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 Handbook

During the first decades of America's existence as a nation, private citizens, voluntary associations, and government officials encouraged the smuggling of European inventions and artisans to the New World. At the same time, the young republic was developing policies that set new standards for protecting industrial innovations. This book traces the evolution of America's contradictory approach to intellectual property rights from the colonial period to the age of Jackson. During the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries Britain shared technological innovations selectively with its American colonies. It became less willing to do so once America's fledgling industries grew more competitive. After the Revolution, the leaders of the republic supported the piracy of European technology in order to promote the economic strength and political independence of the new nation. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the United States became a leader among industrializing nations and a major exporter of technology. It erased from national memory its years of piracy and became the world's foremost advocate of international laws regulating intellectual property.

This paper examines the impact of trade secret laws on the underpricing of initial public offerings (IPOs) in the United States, where we focus on the Uniform Trade Secret Act and/or the inevitable disclosure doctrine. Given that trade secret laws help firms protect their know-how in the form of trade secrets, we propose that trade secrets protected by these laws may result in increased corporate opacity, leading to greater IPO underpricing. Empirically, the average first-day returns of IPOs in states with trade secret laws are 12.7% higher than those in states without such laws. Using the information disclosed in the 10-K report on whether the firm owns trade secrets, we suggest that the existence of trade secret laws enhances the protection effect of firm maintenance of trade secrets, which leads to greater IPO underpricing. Further analyses show that the effect of trade secret laws is reinforced for IPO firms operating in complex industries, IPO firms with R&D investments, and large IPO firms, suggesting that trade secret laws increase the difficulties investors face in assessing the intrinsic value of such firms.

In web-based services, users are often required to submit personal data, which may be shared with third parties. Although privacy regulations mandate the disclosure of intended recipients in privacy policies, this does not fully alleviate users’ privacy concerns. The presence of a privacy policy does not ensure compliance, since users must assess the trustworthiness of all parties involved in data sharing. On the other hand, service providers want to minimize the costs associated with preserving user privacy. Indeed, service providers may have their own privacy preservation requirements, such as hiding the identities of third-party suppliers. We present a novel framework designed to tackle the dual challenges of bidirectional privacy preservation and cost-effectiveness. Our framework safeguards the privacy of service users, providers, and various layers of intermediaries in data-sharing environments, while also reducing the costs incurred by service providers related to data privacy. This combination makes our solution a practical choice for web services. We have implemented our solution and conducted a performance analysis to demonstrate its viability. Additionally, we prove its privacy and security within a Universal Composability (UC) framework.

This study examines how the international harmonisation of intellectual property rules, particularly trade secret protection, reshapes the governance of artificial intelligence (AI) in ways that both enable and threaten justice. We argue that convergent standards on undisclosed information are essential for legal certainty in knowledge-intensive AI investments. Such standards are anchored in TRIPS, reinforced by WIPO guidance and digital trade agreements, and complemented by regional instruments such as the EU Trade Secrets Directive. This emerging framework facilitates cross-border technological cooperation while helping prevent the “regulatory expropriation” of code, models, and data infrastructures. At the same time, when this pro-secrecy architecture is extended to opaque algorithmic systems that mediate access to credit, employment, welfare, health and justice, it can entrench digital vulnerability: information asymmetries between firms, states and citizens; barriers to meaningful transparency and audit; and pathogenic forms of exclusion that disproportionately affect already disadvantaged groups. Building on the concept of digital and structural vulnerability, the paper defends a vulnerability-sensitive approach to harmonisation in which trade secret protection is balanced against human rights, algorithmic accountability and the regulatory space of Global South states. We conclude that only an intellectual property regime guided by an ethics and politics of vulnerability can reconcile economic integration, technological development and reducing digital vulnerability in deeply unequal societies.