Theoretical Justifications for Trade Secrets Protection of Routine Business Information

For over a century trade secret law has protected internal business information from misappropriation by departing employees. Over this time, courts developed various limiting doctrines to minimize the impact of this broad protection on employee mobility in particular cases. However, the workplace has changed significantly over this time and these changes raise substantial questions as to whether there is any valid theoretical justification for continuing to protect routine business information under trade secret law. In an environment where the vast majority of trade secrets claims are against former employees, the lack of sound justification for protecting routine business information, the basis for many of these suits, suggests a reevaluation of the broad scope of protection trade secret law provides is warranted. This Article analyzes the protection of routine business information through the lens of the theoretical justifications typically applied to intellectual property systems, including consequentialist and deontological approaches. The Article concludes that consequentialist or utilitarian rationales likely do not justify trade secrets protection for routine business information, while deontological approaches might only provide a weak justification. Accordingly, a reevaluation of the scope of trade secret law may be warranted so that employees can feel confident in making rational career choices without facing the risk of a misappropriation claim against them by their former employer

Episode 18: Robert B. Ahdieh (Texas A&M Law) Shares the Joy of Legal Academics

Robert (Bobby) Ahdieh (Dean & Anthony G. Buzbee Endowed Dean\u27s Chair; Vice President for Professional Schools & Programs, Texas A&M-Forth Worth Chief Operating Officer, Texas A&M University) talks with us about the the joys of teaching law and being a dean

Episode 22: Scott Bauries (USC) & Saurabh Vishnubhakat (Cardozo) on Getting Hired With Your Scholarship

Scott Bauries (Professor of Law, University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law) & Saurabh Vishnubhakat (Director, Intellectual Property & Information Law Program, Cardozo Law) join us to discuss the importance of one\u27s scholarship in getting hired as law faculty

Where an Issuer Fails to Make Disclosures Required by Item 303, Is That Omission Actionable as Securities Fraud?

The Court will consider whether a securities fraud claim under the Securities Exchange Act can be premised on a company’s omission of mandatory Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) disclosures. MD&A disclosures, which are required by Item 303 of Regulation S-K, are intended to provide investors with a view of the company through the eyes of management, including a description of any known trends or uncertainties that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on the company’s continuing operations

Episode 21: Naomi Cahn (UVA), June Carbone (UMN), & Nancy Levit (UMKC) on How to Get a Fair Shake

Naomi Cahn (Justice Anthony M. Kennedy Distinguished Professor of Law & Armistead M. Dobie Professor Law - UVA Law), June Carbone (Robina Chair in Law, Science & Technology - UMN), and Nancy Levit (Associate Dean for Faculty & Curator\u27s Professor & Edward D. Ellison Professor of Law - UMKC) all join us to discuss their new book, Fair Shake: Women & the Fight to Build a Just Economy

Episode 13: John Linarelli (Touro) on Legal Education in the U.S. & the U.K.

Prof. John Linarelli (Touro) discusses the differences -- & similarities -- between legal education in the U.S. & the U.K