Protecting Trade Secrets Is Beneficial

In this case we are introduced to Eve DuPlacie, an information technology professional working for Orange Company. Orange company is a huge corporation who produces wireless mobile device, and rivals her previous telecommunications employer Banana Company. Eve has found herself in an ethical dilemma of whether or not to provide her new employer with trade secrets that she is contractually obligated not to disclose by her previous employer. Her new employment contract with Orange obliges her to utilize all her skills and knowledge of the industry to help improve Orange’s products; however, her previous employment contract at Banana contained a clause requiring her not to disclose any of their commercial information for a year after her contract ended. She is obliged by her current employer to disclose the trade secrets, and obliged not to disclose them by her previous employer. Seeing as how there are no others in the case who would influence Eve’s decision, Eve is the only one morally responsible for deciding where her loyalties lie. While there are factors within the case from both perspectives that perhaps could influence her decision, Eve is still the only person responsible for her course of action.

Closed innovation implies that companies try to develop new products and processes based on the idea that the company itself has the best possible knowledge and resources for innovation. (CHRESBROUGH, 2003 p228)

Supreme Court cases in which the court separated the purely functional components of computer software from those that demonstrated "originality of design." Software copyright law protects not only the literal software code from being copied, but also the program's design features and elements, as long as these show evidence of creativity or design.A trade secret is any formula, pattern, compound, device, process, tool, or mechanism that is not generallyknown or discoverable by others, is maintained in secrecy by its owner, and gives its owner a competitive advantage because it is kept secret. The classic example of a trade secret is the formula to Coca-Cola. A trade secret can theoretically last forever -- for as long as its owner uses reasonable efforts to keep it secret and someone else doesn't independently create or "discover" it. Many features of software, such as code and the ideas and concepts reflected in it, can be protected as trade secrets. This protection lasts as long as the protected element retains its trade secret status. Unlike patents, trade secret protection will not extend to elements of software that are readily ascertainable by lawful means, such as reverse engineering or independent

Summary: Part of the problem with intellectual property is clearly defining its value. In fact, many countries to this day bicker when defining their intellectual property laws and the extent to which any type of intellectual property should be protected. There have not been any studies conducted in the last 20 years on the actual value of intellectual property, which makes it even more difficult for countries to define. After sampling United States and Foreign companies, it can be concluded that the greatest measure of intellectual property value is the overall investment that has been placed within the company since the invention of that information. Additionally, the greater protection a country offers for intellectual property, the more foreign businesses will enter the country.

Similarly, another advantage of the patent is restricting competitors. In the smartphone industry, Apple had a patent for its slide and lock feature and other competitors such as Samsung are unable to use that feature. With patents, companies are able to differentiate themselves and their products and they can restrict the innovation of other companies.

Everywhere we look there is intellectual property. Intellectual property relates to intangible property such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets” (USLegal, n.d.). With all of the intellectual property readily available, online and in print there is no wonder that we as a society have an issue with safe guarding our own intellectual property. In order to protect our intellectual property there have been many laws and or rules established to govern how we handle and safeguard this type of property. These laws are found at both state and federal levels and are different between states. In a similar fashion, laws vary between countries as well.

Technology enriches our society by making widely available new and useful goods, services, and technical information . Clearly, as a society, we would want to encourage the development of technology so that we can reap the benefits they offer us. Innovators require an incentive to invent and share these technologies with the rest of society. This incentive is achieved by granting intellectual property rights (IPR) to inventors . More specifically, the incentive is usually achieved by granting patents to inventors .

Their evidence suggests two conclusions, the effects of patents on follow-on innovation appear to be quantitatively small, and patent protection on human genes does not appear to have hindered follow-on innovation,

Let's say that you own a profitable company that makes basic paper goods. You probably don't have any big trade secrets or special processes to protect.

Roald Dahl’s well-known children’s book, Charlie & the Chocolate Factory, depicted a talented inventor of candy known as Willy Wonka. The talented inventor’s creations were constantly under seize by his competitors, specifically Mr. Slugworth, Mr. Fickelgruber, and Mr. Prodnose. Wonka went to extreme measures to ensure his trade secrets, creations, and technologies were kept safe from his competitors. The amount of effort put into protecting his secrets was incredibly overworked. The challenges Willy Wonka faced in protecting his secrets are literary example of the real world obstacles inventors face with their creations. In today’s technological

Recently, Congress and the courts in the United States have been active in reining in what many have seen as patent system that has run amuck. In the process, they have placed a number of limits on patent holders’ ability to effectively and successfully enforce patents. But as opportunities to enforce intellectual property through patent suits have been narrowed, another IP door appears to be opening.

Today’s businesses often based on the workings of a particular patent or idea, or may depend on a carefully developed clients list-information must be kept secret if they are to maintain a competitive edge. An employee with access to these assets could be seen as an asset to competitors, or he/she may decide to start

These R&D labs usually concentrated on bringing out new technologies for self-commercialisation. This process can be viewed in the form of a funnel, where a large number of varied ideas and concepts can be trimmed down to few of those concepts and ideas that best meet the requirements of the company. (OECD, 2008) In recent times, companies have become more open with their innovation process, leading to revolution described as “Open Innovation” by Chesbrough (2003). This ‘open innovation’ model is a more dynamic model when compared the traditional model as there is much more interaction between knowledge assets outside the company as well as inside. Henry Chesbrough (2003) in his book “Open Innovation: New Imperative for creating and profiting from technology” defines open innovation as a concept in which companies must use ideas from inside as well as outside sources and find internal and external ways to reach the market in order to advance their technological capabilities. Open innovation combines these 3

Innovation is normally used to denote the process that takes place when a product or a process is developed, from idea to market; the concept of invention only denotes the process that takes place when new ideas or solutions are generated. Baumol (2002) argues “is it possible to have lots of inventions and still lack innovations. Nevertheless, inventions are a necessary precondition for innovation”.

India has put in place a patent regime that allows the grant of patents for both products and processes for all eligible inventions. The changes made in 1999, 2002 and 2005 have been ostensibly to comply with its WTO ob-ligations on intellectual property. How-ever, an analysis of the changes suggests that there were some in Indian industry and government who believed that stronger patent protection, even beyond what is required under India's international obligations, will attract local R&D as well as foreign direct investment.