By The Mogambo Guru

Jim Willie of the Hat Trick Letter notes that Bloomberg has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Reserve to force the Fed to give some details about where in the hell $700 billion went after disbursement from the TARP funds, a request and a lawsuit that the Fed is steadfastly fighting, tooth and nail.

The reason the Fed gives is that trade secrets are in there somehow! Mr. Willie says, "The USFed will continue to withhold internal memos as well as information about trade secrets and commercial information. Are you kidding me? TRADE SECRETS BY AN AGENCY HIRED TO MANAGE THE DOLLAR AND TREASURYS???"

To continue reading this interesting article from dailyreckoning.com, please click here.

By Joseph Romm

A new study puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour--triple current U.S. electricity rates!

In contrast to this transparency, many nuclear promoters have adopted a "Black Box" approach. It has unfortunately been the case over the last couple of years that some utilities have begun to claim that even rudimentary basics of their nuclear cost estimates must be hidden from the public as "trade secrets." For instance, in the South Carolina Electric & Gas proposal to build two reactors now under consideration by the South Carolina PSC, there is literally a large "box" obscuring the bulk of the calculations in the SC E&G Exhibit which presents the utility's projection of construction and financing costs for the proposed two-unit facility. In a different case, Duke Energy claimed that it does not even have to disclose its new cost estimates for a proposed nuclear facility in Cherokee County, S.C.. In the Duke case, C. Dukes Scott, South Carolina's consumer advocate, who represents the public in utility rate cases, noted, "If the cost wasn't confidential in February," Scott said, "how is it confidential in April?"

To read the complete article from americanprogress.com please click here.

By ERCAN YAVUZ ANKARA

Turkey has taken another step toward full utilization of nuclear energy by drafting a bill on nuclear energy that guarantees the nation will use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
The bill foresees the establishment of a Turkish Nuclear Regulatory Board (TNDK) as an independent body free from the influence of the state, politicians and individuals. The board members will take an oath before the administration board of the Supreme Court of Appeals before taking office. They must swear that they will conduct their duties with utter care, honesty and impartiality; that they will not act contrary to the provisions of the nuclear energy law or allow violation of these provisions; that they will not allow people to gain unfair benefits; that they will abide by the principles of equality; and that they will prioritize the security and safety of individuals, society and the environment.

The TNDK may request all sorts of information or documents from the applicants or authorized people provided that principles of confidentiality are preserved. If necessary, the TNDK may allow information which is not regarded as a state secret or professional or trade secret to be accessible to national or international organizations, public authorities or the general public.

To continue reading this interesting article from sundayszaman.com, click here.

Metropolitan Corporate Counsel
Volume 16, Number 12 - December 2008
James P. Flynn
Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

[T]rade on the Silk Road ...included...oasis merchants who served as intermediaries in this down-the-line trade, as it is called, [and who] were careful to discourage longer-distance trade by exaggerating the distances and dangers involved, and they suppressed detailed accounts of distant lands, treating such information as trade secrets. One odd result of this is that [those who]... were in regular trade contact ...were still almost entirely ignorant of each other.
- John Major,
Historical Background of the Silk Roads
(2002)
The 7000-mile Silk Road was one of the world's first great international trade routes. It moved westward across China, through Northern India and the Middle East, to Europe. Though many in today's economy do not regularly travel through the inhospitable Taklimakan desert and other difficult areas, China, India and Europe remain economically linked, and merchants must still protect their trade secrets in such regions. But now that requires more than guarding caravans. Now one's best protection comes from understanding the protections available under European, Indian, and Chinese law.

Continue reading "BUMPS ALONG THE SILK ROAD: PROTECTING TRADE SECRETS FROM EUROPE TO INDIA TO CHINA" »

Background: Employee filed claim against former employer with the Department of
Labor for unpaid wages under the Wage Act. Employer removed the claim to Superior
Court for a jury trial, and moved to consolidate the action with its own pending action against employee for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets, among other claims. The Superior Court, Chancery Division, Union County, granted employer's motions, and employee filed motion for leave to appeal.

Holdings: The Superior Court, Appellate Division, Skillman, P.J.A.D., held
that:

(1) Wage Act claim was subject to Superior Court's plenary authority, and

(2) claim could be consolidated with employer's action.

Affirmed.

Continue reading " B & H SECURITIES, INC., a New Jersey Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Duane D. PINKNEY, Marc J. Palladino, Michael Poisler and Advanced Integration Security " »

Patentees brought action against competitor, alleging infringement of
patent which described a computer program for developing component-based software
capable of performing tasks relating to insurance transactions, such as claims
processing, and also claims for trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition
and deceptive trade practices in violation of the Delaware Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act (DTPA), common law unfair competition, and tortious interference
with business relations. Competitor filed counterclaims for declaratory judgments
of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability, breach of contract, as well
as claims of bad faith litigation as proscribed by the Lanham Act and the DPTA,
and the common law of unfair competition. Competitor moved to dismiss patentees'
state law claims and trade secret misappropriation claims, and patentees moved to
dismiss or, in the alternative, to bifurcate and stay competitor's bad faith
litigation counterclaims.

Holdings: The District Court, Sue L. Robinson, J., held that:

(1) patentees failed to allege that competitor obtained their trade secrets by
improper means, as required to state a trade secret misappropriation claim under
the Delaware Uniform Trade Secrets Act (DUTSA);

(2) patentees failed to state a prima facie claim for tortious interference with
a business relationship under Delaware law;

(3) patentees did not sufficiently allege an unfair competition claim under the
DTPA;

(4) competitor failed to sufficiently allege Lanham Act unfair competition
claim;

(5) patentees' statements did not represent competitor's goods as having

characteristics they did not have, disparage competitor's goods and business, or
create likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding, as would violate the DTPA; and

(6) competitor failed to state common law unfair competition claim.

Motions granted.

Continue reading " ACCENTURE GLOBAL SERVICES GMBH and Accenture LLP, Plaintiffs, v. GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE INC., Defendant" »

By Louis Porter and Daniel Barlow
Vermont Press Bureau

Doctor-industry transparency

Lawmakers and advocates will push this year for greater transparency between doctors and health professionals in Vermont and the medical industry, including the companies that make the medications doctors prescribe.

The Vermont Attorney General's office issues a report annually that details how much money the medical industry gave in gifts and donations to doctors -- but that list contains loopholes that allow for under-reporting and are difficult to use.

Lawmakers say they want to strip the "trade secrets" provision from the state law and set up an online database for health care consumers to determine if their doctors have relationships that are troubling or if their hands are clean.

Expect the pharmaceutical industry to fight this change hard.

To read the complete article from Rutland Herald Online click here.

By Khizar Alam Khan
Pakistan Observer Newspaper online edition

Pakistan provides a wide range of protection for intellectual property through the federal registration of trademarks and service marks through federal patent protection and copyright protection under state laws, through protection of trade secrets and marks. Federal protections extend only throughout Pakistan. Pakistan IPR laws confer little or no protection in other countries. To secure full patent rights in another country, you must apply for a patent in that country.

Some advantages and minimum standards for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property do exist under treaties or other international agreements. For example, copyright protection is automatic in all WTO countries without any formality (such as registration, copyright notice, etc.), and is extended on the basis of national treatment-that is, a Pakistan author suing in France under French copyright law is entitled to the same protection as a French author suing in France under French copyright law. The World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs) upgraded standards of protection for a full range of IPR. The agreement also provides for the effective enforcement of those standards both internally and at the border. The TRIPs Agreement is the first multilateral intellectual property agreement that is enforceable between governments. The agreement has a strong dispute settlement mechanism to resolve disputes. The question of whether to pursue international protection for your IPR is not always particularly defined for example , there may be cases when it is advisable to forego patent protection to safeguard trade secrets and sensitive information that may need to be published in the patent process. In any case, the first step in determining if IPR protection is right for your company is to secure the services of specialized legal counsel. It is important to note that in addition to obtaining patent protection, you should also protect your trade secrets through appropriate confidentiality provisions in employment, licensing, marketing, financing, distribution, and joint venture agreements.

By James B. Stewart (Author Archive)

Now that some of the dust is settling around the Bernard Madoff scandal -- he allegedly admitted to bilking his investors out of at least $50 billion -- there has been a growing tendency in some quarters to blame the victims, at least in part. According to these theories, they should have recognized that annual returns of around 10% in both good times and bad were too good to be true. They should have been suspicious of Madoff's vague explanations of how he arrived at those results. And to the extent he described his strategy, which involved the simultaneous purchase of stock and sale of option contracts, they should have noticed that there wasn't sufficient volume in those options trades to account for the reported gains.

The lesson from such criticisms, I suppose, is that we should all turn ourselves into forensic accountants. I find that preposterous, not to mention distasteful, given that some of these people have lost their life savings. After all, consistent returns in good and bad markets are the selling point for nearly every hedge fund. There are plenty that have reported much larger annual returns without raising eyebrows. Indeed, Madoff's returns were good, but not so spectacular as to raise undue suspicion. As for his vague explanations, they were no vaguer than those of many other hedge fund managers and even mutual fund managers. No one wants to give away his or her trade secrets. And as for the volume of trading in options contracts, what investor has the time for that kind of detective work, even assuming it might have revealed some irregularities?

To continue reading this interesting article from SmartMoney.com click here.

Sun Editorial

In its mission to protect human health and the environment, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to act as a clearinghouse for information about hazardous chemicals.

However, an analysis by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel found that the EPA is making it difficult for people to find information about chemicals and is allowing companies to keep compounds, including those shown to cause cancer and respiratory problems, secret.

It's not supposed to be that way. The EPA's chemical monitoring program was established 30 years ago to help the public steer clear of dangerous chemicals. Manufacturers are required to regularly file information about the hazardous chemicals they make. They are allowed to withhold information only in limited circumstances, including trade secrets but, when it comes to health and safety information, nothing is supposed to be secret.

To continue reading this interesting article from Las Vegas Sun click here.

By Lee Howard

Pfizer Inc. has been ordered to pay at least $38 million - and may owe more than $100 million - to settle a California trade-secrets lawsuit, The San Jose Mercury News has reported.

The verdict, after a six-week trial, found that Pfizer had conspired to steal trade secrets from the nonprofit Ischemia Research and Education Foundation of San Bruno, Calif., in an effort to develop the painkiller Bextra. The lawsuit alleged that Pfizer stole a database on cardiovascular risks associated with drugs like Bextra.

Bextra, co-developed by Pfizer and Pharmacia, was eventually pulled from the market because of cardiac concerns.

To continue reading the complete article from theday.com click here.

By Dick Russ

John Blazy and his incredible works of art are making their way from his Parma workshop to all parts of the country. John, the founder and owner of John Blazy Designs, has invented and perfected the manufacture of what he calls "Dichrolam."

It is glass that splits light into ever-changing colors and patterns. It's like a combination prism, hologram, and kaleidoscope with 480 microlayers of translucent resin.

Indeed, John Blazy's trade secrets are well guarded and protected. His technique of placing a liquid resin between two sheets of glass and turning the finished product into an astonishing creation of color, is unique in the world.

To continue reading this interesting article from wkyc.com click here.

By Daniel Barlow
Times Argus Online

MONTPELIER - Some lawmakers are envisioning a future where Vermonters can type in a doctor's name into an on-line database and see exactly how much - if any - money they receive from the pharmaceutical industry.

For several years now, the Vermont Attorney General's Office has issued a report detailing the amount of money those in the medical field receive from the pharmaceutical industry. But that report is criticized for not being complete or user-friendly. Now, key lawmakers say they want to see changes to the law that set up that reporting system, including stripping a trade-secret exemption that allows the industry to keep secret the amounts of money and identities of doctors they give to.

Welsh v. Big Ten Conference, Inc. (11/21/08)

The court granted in part and denied in part Big's motion to dismiss Welsh's amended complaint and request for attorney fees. Welsh's theory was that he owned the rights to certain trade secrets (namely the "Big Ten Network" and the business ideas it encompassed as described in Welsh's business plan) and that Big obtained its registration for the "Big Ten Network" mark by not telling the PTO that Welsh had rights in those trade secrets. Even assuming that Welsh established trade secrets to the name and associated concept, those rights did not automatically translate into trademark rights. Welsh could not assert a trademark right in his idea for the name or content of "Big Ten Network." Welsh's actions did not rise to the required level of "use" to trigger protection under the Lanham Act and did not give rise to a colorable claim of ownership of the mark that rendered Big's failure to disclose Welsh's prior use of the term a violation of the Lanham Act.

This case requires us to construe an exclusion barring coverage for "any claim
arising out of any misappropriation of trade secret" in a professional liability
policy issued by the defendant, National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (National Union), to the plaintiff, Uniscribe
Professional Services, Inc. (Uniscribe). After settling a claim with a client from
whom sensitive documents were taken while in Uniscribe's care, Uniscribe commenced
an action seeking a declaratory judgment that National Union had a duty to defend
and indemnify Uniscribe for the settlement. National Union moved for
judgment on the pleadings, see Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(c), 365 Mass. 754 (1974),
arguing that its policy excluded claims arising out of the misappropriation of
trade secrets (intellectual property exclusion), wrongful acts committed with the
knowledge that it was a wrongful act (knowing wrongful acts exclusion) and
criminal acts (criminal acts exclusion). Uniscribe opposed National Union's motion
and moved for partial summary judgment

Continue reading "This case requires us to construe an exclusion barring coverage for "any claim arising out of any misappropriation of trade secret" in a professional liability policy " »

Davida H. Isaacs
Northern Kentucky University - Salmon P. Chase College of Law

Robert Michael Farley
Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce

Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Forthcoming

Abstract:
It is every inventor's nightmare: a valuable idea, stolen, with no legal recourse. Yet that is precisely what happened in Lucent v. Crater, where the Federal Circuit permitted the Federal Government to defeat the inventors' claims using the military and state secrets privilege. In light of the recent upsurge in the Government's invocation of this privilege, it is time to scrutinize more carefully courts' highly deferential response to its use. There is little question that the executive branch must be able to invoke the privilege in order to ensure that national security is not imperiled by public disclosure of information. But courts too often acquiesce in the complete suppression of that information. Unfortunately, in the context of claims regarding unauthorized military use of inventions, this extreme reaction has the potential to engender several serious problems.

First, as demonstrated in Crater, under some circumstances the suppression may disregard inventors' constitutional rights. Where the Government has misappropriated a trade secret, the owner has the constitutional right to compensation for that "taking." But suppression of the evidence needed to prove the owner's claim removes that constitutionally mandated remedy. Second, and equally problematic, the destruction of inventors' claims (whether patent or trade secret) may have a significant deterrent effect on companies' willingness to pursue inventions sought by the military. This effect is particularly troubling because it will fall disproportionately on smaller businesses, which directly conflicts with the Department of Defense's stated goal of increasing the proportion of defense technology that comes from smaller businesses. Such businesses must rely primarily on legal protection, rather than political or economic clout, to vindicate their intellectual property rights. If application of the privilege strips these inventors of that protection, they may be disinclined to focus on inventions of interest to the military. In essence, the nation's long-term defense strategy is being taken hostage by the Government's short-term litigation strategy.

Given these concerns, as well as courts' essential obligation to hear valid claims, it is incumbent upon courts to consider more carefully whether the circumstances of a particular case require the severe response seen in Crater. In many situations, courts could employ procedural mechanisms that would safeguard sensitive information yet still permit innovators to pursue their claims. Using these approaches, courts could protect sensitive information without forcing inventors to have to pay the price - literally and figuratively - for the Government's use of its privilege and without risking our nation's future security.

44 Gonz. L. Rev. 81 (2008)
Sharon K. Sandeen

Anyone who has paid attention to developments in the world of business over the past quarter century knows that intellectual property ("IP") is a hot commodity. Indeed, in contrast to companies that emerged from the Industrial Revolution, many of the companies spawned during the Information Age attribute much of their value and prospects to intangible, rather than tangible, assets. Pursuant to IP theory, this shift in focus should have the desirable effect of encouraging more inventive and creative activity. From a practical point of view, it has created a situation where the value of a company can be more "smoke and mirrors" than real.
The ethereal nature of IP should be of particular concern to the parties to a bankruptcy proceeding because a principal focus in such cases is the identification and distribution of the assets of the debtor's estate. If, as some companies represent to their shareholders, creditors, and others, IP rights make up a major portion of a company's assets, then it is important for bankruptcy judges, trustees, and creditors to be able to identify, secure, and properly value such assets. Unfortunately, while bankruptcy courts and commentators have recognized the need to distinguish between tangible assets and IP rights, particularly when determining whether a claim against the bankruptcy estate is secured or unsecured, they often fail to acknowledge the practical and legal differences between the various forms of intellectual property. Not all forms of IP are created equal. For instance, while existing patent rights and pending patent applications are documented in writings that are available over the Internet, the same cannot be said for copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. Trade secrets, in particular, present a challenge for bankruptcy courts because they do not always exist in tangible form and, by definition, they must be kept secret. Thus, the very act of identifying and attempting to place a value on them may result in the loss of such rights.
A number of articles have addressed the treatment of IP assets in bankruptcy proceedings. [FN8] Typically, these articles focus on two important aspects of bankruptcy law as it relates to IP: (1) how to perfect a security interest in IP assets, i.e., "general intangibles" in the parlance of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (the "U.C.C."), and (2) the treatment of executory contracts involving IP assets. [FN9] Rather than focus on a discussion of security interests and executory contracts as they relate to trade secrets, this article takes a broader approach by examining additional trade secret related issues that may arise in a bankruptcy proceeding.
The analysis of how trade secrets are treated in bankruptcy begins in section II with a discussion of the intersection of bankruptcy and trade secret law. The article then explores the interests and objectives of the various players in a bankruptcy case. In order of involvement, section III examines the interests of the debtor. Next, in section IV, the interests of the bankruptcy trustee (including a debtor in possession) are discussed. [FN10] Given that the interests of the debtor and trustee may vary depending upon whether the bankruptcy petition is filed under chapter 7 (liquidation), [FN11] chapter 11 (reorganization), [FN12] or chapter 13 (individual), [FN13] the differing laws and rules applicable to each chapter are discussed where appropriate.
Beginning with section V, the article explores the interests of creditors and other third parties. Befitting their special status, section V focuses on secured creditors and addresses how to perfect security interests in trade secrets. Because bankruptcy debtors are often the licensors of trade secrets, section VI examines bankruptcy proceedings through the eyes of a licensee. It is in sections III and VI where the treatment of executory contracts involving trade secrets is discussed. As will be seen, *84 courts have yet to fully examine many of the issues concerning trade secrets that can arise in a bankruptcy proceeding.