Theft of trade secrets has emerged as one of the easier crimes for disgruntled, unethical, or unscrupulous and opportunistic employees to commit. These employees may which to harm their employer or wish to achieve some personal gain by selling or trading the trade secrets that they can obtain through the course of their trusted access to company systems. These thefts are most often committed by individuals who are looking for alternative employment for those who are looking to start their companies, all on the backs of the good work of their current and soon-to-be-former employer. These thefts can be devastating to companies, damaging their reputation, value, morale and standing in the business community, not to mention their competitive advantage.
Competitors, particularly smaller corporations, have in the past been victims of unethical and criminal acts by large corporations. In the freewheeling capitalist industrial environment of the 19th century, the robber barons used essentially every imaginable mean of destroying their competitor, and they were often successful. The Standard Oil Corporation was maybe the absolute most well-known case of an organization that savagely undermine practically all contenders before the end of 19th century; it had obtained a virtual monopoly, controlling 95 percent of the market. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1980 was at least in part inspired by anger over the monopolistic practices of the large corporate trust (Halligan, 2008). Although full-scale private sector monopolies like Standard Oil disappeared, monopolistic practices continued, in part because of weak implementation of the Sherman Act and continuous antitrust law.
Another recent study of corporation crime by Almeling & Sapoznikow (2009) has found that anticompetitive methods are still quite popular. One major antitrust case was conducted by IBM, though the suit was finally abandoned. More recently, competitors of Microsoft have complained of its anticompetitive practices, and the video game maker Nintendo has been the victim of related charges. In 2008, the giant producer of computer processors, Intel was being investigated by the FTC for antitrust practices (Brenton, 2009). Wal-Mart was found wrong of engaging in rapacious pricing to underprice competing retailers. In all such abuses, the economic philosophy of the federal or state administration in the power is an essential factor in defining the form and strength of the justice system response.
As Merges & Lemley (2006) noted, corporate illegalities directed at competitors can take some different forms, including patent, trademark and copyright infringements. In the current information age, the burglary of thoughts and innovation has presumably turned out to be essential than any other event in recent retention. In one case in the 1980s, delegates of the Hitachi Corporation after an examining by the FBI, at last, conceded to the robbery of corporate secrets from IBM. Thus, IBM has been both an accused perpetrator of anti-competitive and a casualty of corporate robbery by a contender. In another case in the 1990s, an abnormal state official of Volkswagen, Jose Lopez, who once in the past headed General Motors auto parts purchased division, was accused of stealing thousands of pages of trade secrets from his former employer. Lopez was in this way prosecuted on criminal allegations, and Volkswagen consented to pay General Motors $100 million to settle claims for the situation. In 2008, Siemens, a German industrial conglomerate, was accused of posting stole secret of rival business on a computer network (Rowe, 2008). Theft of corporate secrets is an ongoing activity.
Still another type of anticompetitive practice includes obstruction with contractual understandings. In an all around promoted case in the 1980s, Texaco was blamed for shamefully undermining a contender, Pennzoil, in the procurement of Getty Oil; specifically, Texaco was found to have fraudulently induced Getty Oil to break a contract with Pennzoil, thereby stripping Pennzoil of rights to a billion barrels of oil reserves. The civil court proceedings resulted in a judgment against Texaco of 11 billion dollars, although Texaco ultimately settled with Pennzoil for 3 billion dollars. In 2001 case involving the collapse of the giant energy corporation, Enron, the company accused another major energy company, Dynergy, of self –serving administrations in the context of merger talks, as Dynergy reached for profit from the downfall of Enron. Enron launched a civil lawsuit on Dynergy
Unmistakably notwithstanding swindling purchasers, false promoting and distortion of items can hurt contenders to the degree that the guilty party escapes with such false claims. By and large, then wrongdoings against contenders can take numerous structures, and in any event, a percentage of the subsequent misfortunes are gone along to shoppers. It is important to note that misuse of company resources and time –especially computer resource is a major ethical issue. Abusive or intimidating behavior such as physical threats is examples of unethical activities which corporate organization practice.
A conflicting interest occurs when an individual must choose whether to advance their interests, those of the organization, or some other group. The EFA was enacted by the U.S Congress primarily in response to attempts by foreign entities to steal American trade secrets. It was not enacted to regulate to competitive intelligence industry nor was it enacted in response to any issues arising out of activities of competitive intelligence professionals. Properly trained competent intelligence professional who has conducted themselves in an ethical manner will not be subjected to criminal liability for trade secret misappropriation. Acquiring trade secret information through theft, bribery fraud or electronic espionage was a crime even before the enactment of the EEA. The EEA has not changed the standards of conduct. Instead, the EEA has created a federal criminal offense to fill gaps in existing federal laws.
Further, the so-called “gray zone” situation such as finding a lost document on place, overarching competitors talk at trade show, having with a competitor knowing you are better at holding liquor, removing name tag at a convention or false identifying self as student or writer are acts which are unethical but do not constitute trade secrets violation in and of themselves. The EEA is not intended to criminalize every theft of trade secrets for which civil remedies may exist under state law. Presently, the Justice Department regulations provide that the United States may not file a charge under the EEA, or use a violation of the EEA as a predicted offense under any other law, without the approval of the Attorney General or the Assistant.
In conclusion, it is noted that ethical issues that relate to theft of trade secrets have been identified in many instances and with various bigger corporations. Theft of corporate secrets is an ongoing activity and has been relevant in many ways. In other cases, it regulates to competitive intelligence industry. However, as noted, the cases involve ethical issues that are considered inappropriate. Individuals, as well as organizations, therefore, have the responsibility of ensuring the safety of their companies and avoidance of issues that are ethically inappropriate.
References
Halligan, R. M. (2008). Protection of US Trade Secret Assets: Critical Amendments to the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L., 7, 656-754.
Almeling, D. S., Snyder, D. W., & Sapoznikow, M. (2009). Statistical Analysis of Trade Secret Litigation in Federal Courts, A. Gonz. L. Rev., 45, 291.
Brenton, K. W. (2009). Trade Secret Law and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: Two Problems and Two Solutions. U. Ill. JL Tech. & Pol'y, 429.
Merges, R. P., Menell, P. S., & Lemley, M. A. (2006). Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age. Aspen Law & Business.
Rowe, E. A. (2008). Saving Trade Secret Disclosures on the Internet Through Sequential Preservation. Wake Forest L. Rev., 42, 1.
