U.S. trade secret lawTalking from the DuPont Company v. Kristof

U.S. trade secret law
- Talking from the DuPont Company v. Kristof

In the U.S., copyright, patent and trademark protection, have federal laws to regulate them. But for the protection of trade secrets, still belong to the scope of state law, there is no federal law on trade secret law. State trade secret law is case law. In theory, states can free development of the protection rules recognized in the jurisprudence on the protection of trade secrets. However, in fact, the small states of the modern trade secret law differences can even be said is basically similar. This is mainly because the state trade secret law is dominated by the 1939 Restatement of Torts, "and the 1979 Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

The early U.S. trade secret law originated in the United Kingdom's trade secrets case. The 20th century, in order to state case law does not too different, brings together some excellent lawyers, judges and university professors, the integration of some basic principles of the case law and significant views, published a series of "re- The above ". 1939 Restatement of Torts "is the series" Restatement of one. Among them, 757 and 758 are discussed in a very long period of time reference and a basis of the judgments of state courts for the protection of trade secrets. In addition, section 759 of the Restatement of Torts, "discusses the protection of non-secret information, there is a certain relationship with the protection of trade secrets.

In 1979, when the second edition of the Restatement of Torts, there is no protection of trade secrets included. , Trade secrets have been "more dependent on other field of law, depends on the broader legal norms development, and not affiliated with tort law." [1] However, in the same year, the Uniform State Law Committee of the National Conference "approved" Uniform Trade Secrets Act. " Uniform Trade Secrets Act "is the principle of protection of trade secrets in the state case law codification, these precedents is the basis or by reference to the 1939 Restatement of Torts" made. Therefore, the "Uniform Trade Secrets Act with the Restatement of Torts" in many respects is the same. Another prominent place of the "Uniform Trade Secrets Act," the judicial practice since the summary of the Restatement of Torts, made a more clearly defined legal remedy violations of trade secrets. Code, which account for a considerable length. It can be said that the unified trade secrets and its definition of infringement to the "Uniform Trade Secrets Act, the unification of trade secrets infringement of the statute of limitations, as well as clear infringement of the legal remedies. [2] In 1985, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act "were revised.

Although the "Uniform Trade Secrets Act," the purpose is to enhance the consistency of state trade secret protection, but it is only a model law, rather than the real code of laws promulgated by the state or federal legislative bodies. Therefore, its role to play, but also to be a state adoption. Since 1981, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act "have been adopted by many states to ratify or 1998, has been ratified by 41 states and the District of Columbia adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. This shows the role played in the United States trade secret protection.

After the enactment of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, adopted the Model Law states did not adopt the state continue to use judicial practice in the Restatement of Torts. Not adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, "the state is naturally applicable" Restatement of Torts, "to hear the cases of the trade secret protection. Those adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act "states, prior to the adoption of the jurisprudence is based on the" Restatement of Torts, "made, and thus the application of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act" to make a new judgment is still not do not use the relevant content in the existing jurisprudence and the Restatement of Torts ". Thus, despite the "Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Restatement of Torts" still or through the existing jurisprudence, or through direct reference to the protection of trade secrets judgment play an important role.

Given the above, the American Law Institute published in 1995, "Law Restatement (Third Edition), Anti-Unfair Competition Law", back into the contents of the relevant trade secrets. This is one of 39 to 45. "Anti-Unfair Competition Law Restatement summary of the Restatement of Torts trade secret protection of judicial decisions since its protection rules, made a detailed discussion of the concept of trade secrets, protection rules, infringement and legal relief . Moreover, the definition of trade secrets, trade secret protection rules, with the Uniform Trade Secrets Act are all basically the same. [3] So far, the "Anti-Unfair Competition Law Restatement of the role of trade secret protection practice is not yet clear.

This paper is to discuss the DuPont v. Christopher, a precedent is made by the U.S. Federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1970. This is a typical precedent applicable Texas state law and the 1939 Restatement of Torts, "to explain and clarify many of the principles of trade secret protection. After the judgment is made in [4], widely cited in the judgment of many U.S. trade secrets. 1979, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the 1995 Restatement of Unfair Competition Law, "also repeatedly cited the precedent, the relevant principles of trade secret protection. In addition, the issues raised by the plaintiff in the claim, also involves some fundamental problems in the protection of trade secrets, such as reasonable measures to protect trade secrets, improper means of access to trade secrets, third party liability, and trade secret infringement legal remedies. All are worthy of our re-discuss this case in 30 years, and the resulting understanding and knowledge of trade secret law in the United States.

This article will be DuPont v. Christopher clues, combined with the Restatement of Torts, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Restatement of Unfair Competition Law and some other typical cases and discuss the U.S. trade secret law some major problems.


Two. Merits Profile


Bill Monte, Texas, DuPont opened a factory plans to produce methanol. As the plant still under construction, the plant has not yet added to the top. March 19, 1969, by the employment of an unidentified third person, Bill Monte photographer Christopher brothers to fly a plane in the air, shooting the DuPont company's new plant. Christopher brother shot a total of 16 photos, and after washing to the unidentified third person.

When the brother of Christopher in the plant over the shooting, received the attention of DuPont employees. They then investigate, trying to figure out the purpose of aircraft circling above in the plant. DuPont identification of the afternoon, the aircraft circled in order to shoot, the photographer is the brother of Christopher. DuPont immediately contact with the brother of Christopher, requiring them to disclose to accept the photo or name of the company. But the brother of Christopher's refusal to disclose the grounds that their clients asked to remain anonymous.

As the investigation reaches an impasse, DuPont immediately filed a lawsuit, for the brother of Christopher alleged that the latter improperly shooting photos with DuPont trade secrets, and photos sold to an unidentified third party. DuPont Company (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) said in the indictment, it spent a huge amount of investment and long research, the development of a highly confidential methanol production methods. The application of this method, make the plaintiff a competitive advantage in the market. However, the plaintiff did not in order to apply for a patent, but as a commercial secret protection, and confidentiality given a high priority. Christopher Brothers (hereinafter referred to as defendant) camera factory, the factory is ready to produce methanol by this secret method. As the factory is under construction, some parts of the production methods can be seen directly in the air. The plaintiff said that the photographs, the technical staff can be deduced that the production of methanol. Therefore, the defendant to take a picture and photos to an unidentified third party, to steal the plaintiff's trade secrets, violations of the rights of the company. Because the defendant has already disclosed the trade secrets, resulting in a loss of the company, DuPont, the Court in this Judgment compensation. In addition, DuPont asked the court to issue temporary and permanent injunction prohibited the further spread of photos to prohibit its methanol production plant further shooting.

The defendant Christopher brother in his reply motion asking the court to dismiss the plaintiff directly prosecution because the prosecution lacked a legal basis, in accordance with the law can not provide relief. Further cross-examination, the defendant again refused to disclose the identity of a third party. In this case, the plaintiff moved a motion asking the court to compel the accused to answer this question and all the problems with the case.

June 5, 1969, the parties are all the motion, including the defendant asked the court to make a "summary judgment" (summary judgment) motion, the trial court held a hearing. Subsequently, the court ruled that the denial of the defendant's three motion to dismiss DuPont lack of legal basis for the prosecution dismissed the claims can not give legal relief and make the motion for summary judgment. At the same time, the court ruled that the sure DuPont forced the defendant to disclose the identity of the motion of its customers. In this regard, the defendant moved a motion to request during the proceedings of the appeal (interlocutory appeal).

On appeal, the defendant and the trial court ruled that objection, but on the crucial second ruling, the plaintiff claims for legal relief may be granted, raised an objection. The appellate Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with the trial court's view on this issue, and thus affirmed the trial court's ruling, and discuss some related issues. [5]


Three. Trade secret law and patent law


The plaintiff in the prosecution said, after it invested heavily in the time to study, develop a production of methanol, but it is not patented, but will be protected as a trade secret. Thus, the plaintiff raised the question of the relationship of trade secret law and patent law. Although the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals did not discuss this issue in the trial of the case, but in the U.S. trade secret law, the relationship between the two is still a worthy first be discussed.

Trade secrets jurisprudence and discussed in detail the relationship between trade secret law and patent law, Kevin Benny oil companies' case in the Supreme Court 1974. [6] in the United States, patent law is a federal law, trade secret law is state law. At the same time, the Constitution of the United States has "the highest authority in terms of both the Constitution and federal law the supreme law of the United States, the Constitution and laws of the state must not violate. Patent law and trade secret law to create the invention to provide protection, while the two requirements are not the same, such as patent law to make full disclosure of the invention for the protection of the premise, trade secret law to secrecy for the protection of the premise. Thus, some people think, create for the protection of the invention, belonging to the state law trade secret law, both the patent law is a federal law there is a conflict, invaded by the patent law field, should be excluded from the field of protection of inventions created outside. It is against this view, "Kevin Benny oil companies" case discussed in detail in a complementary and co-existence of trade secret law and patent law.

The Supreme Court first discussed the invention can not get patent protection. Protected subject matter under Section 101 of the U.S. patent law, methods, machines, products, compounds, and these improvements. Does not belong to these objects of the invention, regardless of how the novel, non-obviousness and usefulness of its inventor can not be patented. In this case, even the abolition of protection of trade secrets, will not enable the inventor to disclose the generic field of the invention. Moreover, it is difficult to say some content, such as customer lists, advertising plans, even if the disclosure is conducive to the public. In fact, these elements in stealth mode, it will encourage companies to develop new personalized business plan, resulting in constructive competition results.

Second, the protected subject matter provided for in section 101 of the Patent Law, only under the conditions of novelty, non-obviousness and usefulness of, can be subject to patent protection. Those who do not meet the "" object, you can not get patent protection. In this case, patent law and trade secret law have their own area of ??protection, to encourage different levels of inventions, there will never be a conflict. Trade secret law will encourage the reach of the field of patent law, inventions, will encourage the inventor or innovator in the invention or innovation, and full use of their invention or innovation. However, if the abolition of the protection of trade secrets, and to encourage inventors or innovators can not be patented inventions or techniques apply for a patent can only be needlessly increase the burden on the Patent Office. Moreover, such an unnecessary application will not promote the disclosure of the invention, because the Patent Office will not disclose was dismissed or the applicant to waive the application case.

Kevin Benny oil companies "case, the Supreme Court but also strive to depict the bleak prospects for the protection of trade secret law.

If the abolition of trade secret protection against disloyal employees, does not meet the patent standard of invention or innovation-related businesses can only take a heavy self-protection measures. For example, an increase of unnecessary preventive measures; employees to understand the secret invention to the high wages and various preferential conditions to ensure their loyalty. Small companies will result in extremely unfavorable economic situation, because the cost of such self-protection is too expensive. No liability for the breach of an obligation of confidentiality, business owners have to the invention is limited to himself and a few trusted people, to the detriment of the invention is fully utilized.

Abolished the protection of trade secrets, and to authorize others to use secret technology will become a problem. Can not ensure that the licensee obligations, payment of royalties or keep a secret, commercial secret owner will be reluctant to share their secrets with other manufacturers. As a result of imprisonment, rather than the diffusion of knowledge. As the trade secret owner in the absence of the invention permits to the same industry, other manufacturers make full use of, or limited use of the invention, or purchase equipment and develop the market to take advantage of the invention but had to spend money and time. In this way, neither allow the public to maximize the benefits, causing waste of resources.

Abolished the protection of trade secrets, it will be difficult to effectively prevent industrial espionage. To prevent theft, wiretapping, bribery and other encroachment of trade secrets by unfair means, trade secrets everyone will have to increase costs. When a business stealing trade secrets from another enterprise, the ultimate victims will be the basic norms of the society. "Industrial espionage tolerance or profitable, the most basic of human rights of privacy will be threatened."

Kevin Benny oil companies' case finally concluded that: "trade secret law and patent law in this country has been the coexistence of a hundred years and they have their own specific role, the use of one does not mean that do not need another commercial secret law encourages the development and use of those less than or different according to the patent law can be protected inventions, but these inventions are still in the development of national science and technology play an important role in trade secret law to promote the effective functioning of the knowledge sharing and industry that allows individual inventors to sign a contract with the company for labor compensation, because the company has the ability to develop and use the invention. through many years of silence, the Congress has wisely allowed the states to the implementation of the protection of trade secrets. clearly to take the opposite action in Congress the states should be safely on trade secrets to protect. "[7]

Protection of inventions related to creation of trade secret law and patent law co-exist and complement each other, but the degree of protection, after all, is inconsistent. Compared with the patent law, trade secret law, the protection provided in many ways just a weak protection. Patent on his invention to create the right to enjoy exclusive manufacturing, use, sale, offer for sale and import, regardless of others is an imitation or independently developed the same invention. It can be said that the patent is a "right". Trade secret law can only prohibit others to breach of confidentiality obligations or by other improper means to obtain, disclose and use the invention. For others a fair and honest means to obtain the same invention, including the independent development and direction of the project, the trade secret owner has no right to prohibit the disclosure and use. At the same time, the trade secrets at any time faced by others, theft, or others contrary to the obligation of confidentiality and disclosure to the risk of competitors, that all difficult to find or difficult to prove. Patent holders do not have this concern. As the U.S. Supreme Court said: "Here, the patent law is a barrier, trade secrets law relative plays the role of a sieve." [8] In addition, the patent protection period from the date of application 20 years , trade secrets, the only basis to maintain a secret deadline protection. The vast majority of trade secrets difficult to maintain the secrets of more than 20 years. Once the invention information is lost secret or in related fields generally are aware, no longer protected object.

Although trade secret law and patent law co-exist on the protection of inventions, an invention, but only for the protection of trade secret law, or to obtain patent protection, can not get the protection of both. Because the protection of the patent law to disclose the invention to create the premise of protection of trade secret law are related inventions in secrecy for the protection of the premise. An invention can not be both open and secret.

In the two extremes of the invention, the invention is not difficult to select the protection. That does not belong to the object of protection of patent law to make the invention, and although belonging to the object but not enough patent protection "requirements of the invention, skill, improvement, inventor apparently will take the protection of trade secrets. Created for those great inventions, including on a lot of people are trying to solve technical problems and to make the invention, the inventor can only seek patent protection. Otherwise, once the others made the same invention and applied for a patent, it will only limit yourself to take advantage of the invention. According to the law of scientific discoveries in the history of invention maturity time, once a person has made a specific invention, others may make the same invention in a very short time. "If something is destined to be invented, it is very likely to be more than one person invented." [9]

Invention in an intermediate state, all you have to make or take the protection of patent law, or to take the choice of the protection of trade secret law. Strong and the weak level of protection, protection of the long and short, and to apply for, to maintain the patent fees and costs to take security measures, we need all to make a comprehensive and balanced.

In respect of such invention in an intermediate state, the United States patent law has also taken a unique protection. Submitted to the department's application of patent examination, most of the countries in the world to take the "early disclosure, and delay the review of the practice. Although such an approach is conducive to the public as soon as possible to understand the invention in the case of application creation, but in a subsequent review, once the patent examination department rejected the application, the applicant can not be the next best thing to protect their own inventions, trade secrets creation. According to Section 122 of U.S. patent law, the Patent Office for each application case must be kept confidential, without the permission of the applicant or owner shall not disclose any information related to the case of the application, unless the enforcement of the law must be, or the Commissioner of Patents Depending on the circumstances, made the opposite decision. Thus, before the patent application is approved, the application case has been in stealth mode until approved before made public. Moreover, even if the patent application was rejected, related inventions into the public domain there is no "early open". Therefore, whether it is in the process of patent application, or apply for the case was dismissed after the applicant or owner can use the trade secrets to protect their own inventions.

November 29, 1999, the United States through the "Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act, copyright law, patent law, trademark law and communications law has been revised. [10] "Foreign patent applications domestic public Act 122 of the Patent Law has been revised since November 29, 2000. Under amended section 122, for all patent applications, patents Secretary since the date of application full 18 months after the publication of the application case, unless the applicant request for earlier publication. Where the application includes a "priority date" requested by the applicant in accordance with relevant international treaties. This is the general provisions. Subsequently, 122 to the above provisions of a series of restrictions. For example, has withdrawn the application for confidentiality order application for the provisional application, and design application for all shall be made public. The most important exception is that if the applicant requests the public not to apply for the case, at the same time able to demonstrate that did not submit to foreign, and does not intend to submit the same to foreign patent application, the Patent Authority shall not open the relevant application case. This mainly refers to Americans of patent applications submitted to the U.S. Patent Office. Seen in this light, the case of applications submitted to the U.S. Patent Office in patent examination process is still in stealth mode. If the application for the case can not be authorized, the applicant can still retreat to the protection of inventions related to the way of trade secrets.

Seen in this light, as revealed by the title of the "foreigners patent applications of domestic public law", according to the revised section 122 of the published patent application, the main is the case of applications submitted by foreigners. Because of foreigners in the U.S. Patent Office filing the patent application had largely been in the country or other countries submitted applications. Only submit the application of foreigners to the United States Patent Office, if you can not say no, but also very few. Of course, you can open the application case, including the application for Americans, both foreign patent authorities to apply to the national patent office again. As early taken by the majority of countries in the world are open, and deferred examination system, the United States can open this part of the international application for other countries actually be open. Obviously, if the international patent application also apply to domestic case did not open, only unfavorable to the American public. As for the Americans, only applications submitted to the national patent office, as long as the applicant request, you can still not be made public. [11]

Consistent with the relevant provisions of section 122 of the Patent Law, "Tariffs and Patent Court of Appeals Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has also taken corresponding measures. According to the provisions of the Patent Office rejected the application for the case of applicants satisfied with the decision can appeal to the Patent Reexamination Board. Rejection of the application the applicant refuses to accept the decision of the Patent Reexamination Board on Tariffs and Patent Appeals Court "(prior to October 1982) or the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (October 1982), appeal. Under the program, secret trial, the verdict on the appeal taken to archive documents relating to the public, no one will be given access to. In one case in 1978, Tariffs and Patent Appeals pointed out that to do so under the Supreme Court opinion in the case of Kevin Nepalese oil companies, that "as long as possible, trade secret law and patent law should such a way to use: the former should not prevent the inventor to obtain the benefits of the latter. [12]


Four. The composition of trade secrets


In the case of DuPont v. Christopher, the plaintiff in the prosecution, the defendant shot the photo containing the plaintiff trade secret, and sold to an unidentified third party, violated the plaintiff's trade secrets. The plaintiff also said that is a commercial secret method of manufacturing methanol, is out after a huge investment and a long period of research and development, the plaintiff possession of the advantage on the competition in the market. The defendant repeatedly stressed in the first instance and appeal, they are taken in the public air, there is no violation of the Government's aviation regulations, and thus its conduct did not constitute the object of prosecution. In other words, they are taken in the public air, there is no violation of the plaintiff's trade secrets. This raises the question of trade secrets infringement lawsuit must first solve a problem, and that no commercial secrets exist.

In the United States, trade secrets must meet three conditions, that is, the information belongs to a protected object, the relevant information is secret, the information has commercial value.

A. Protected subject matter

It can be said that the Trade Secrets Act emphasized more applicable to the principle of fairness in order to protect certain information in certain industrial and commercial activities, rather than give a strict definition. In fact, the object of protection of trade secret law, inclusion in a definition, it will be very difficult. As a precedent puts it, "trade secret law, ...... example, than to define or try to define more helpful." [13]

Restatement of Torts definition of trade secrets has taken a non-exhaustive list. "Trade secrets can include the collection of any formula, pattern, settings and Information, and for a person of commercial, give him an opportunity to get higher than I do not know or do not use the advantages of its competitors. It can be a chemical compounds of the formula, manufacturing method for a processing or handling of materials, the style of a machine or other settings, or a list of customers. [14] "Uniform Trade Secrets Act's definition is:" commercial secret meaning means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, set up, methods, technologies and processes. "[15] is also cited definition. "Anti-Unfair Competition Law Restatement section 39 under the definition of trade secret is:" commercial secret information can be used for commercial or other industrial activities, and has sufficient value and secrecy, resulting in actual or potential higher than that of other people's economic advantage. "his comments on the object of protection, said:" trade secrets can include a formula, pattern, compilation of data, computer programs, settings, methods, techniques, processes, or other forms or carrier the economic value of a business secret and technical topics related to, such as the composition of the product or design, a manufacturing method, or perform a particular operation or provide a particular service necessary skills (know-how). a trade secret can also be related to other aspects of the business activities, such as pricing and availability of skills, or the customer's identity and requirements (see 42 comment f) of trade secret rights is normally advocated for businesses and other commercial organizations. However, non-profit organizations, such as charitable, educational, government, the Freemasons, and religious organizations, can also have economic value information, such as the expected members of the list or the list of donors, and requires protection. "[16]

Seen in this light, in addition to all personal information outside of government information, regardless of the specific technical information, or non-technical business information, on the basis of other relevant provisions of the elements of, can become the object of trade secret protection.

Two. Valuable

The value of trade secrets, also known as the commercial value of nature, of a trade secrets can make all the competition in the market has the advantage above others. Restatement of Torts "is a trade secret under the definition of" higher than the advantage of the competitors do not know or do not use it "means trade secrets value. Uniform Trade Secrets Act "is this commercial value of clear economic value. : Not widely known for others, others with a legitimate means can not be easily available, so it has actual or potential independent economic value, and others because of its disclosure or application can obtain economic value. [17] Of course, this the less demanding of commercial advantage or commercial value, as long as it is not insignificant to meet the requirements.

In many cases, the court also to the development of the information to pay the economic costs and the time it takes to determine the commercial value of certain information. "Restatement of Torts," determine the standards of the commercial secret that statement, that "he spent in the development of the information the amount of effort or money. Effort and money spent by the owner of trade secret in the development of the information is one of the basis of the court in calculating damages. Of course, trade secret does not require to spend effort and money, because some of the accidental invention may be effortless.

3. Secrecy

Trade secrets constitute the core elements of its secretive nature. In the U.S., when the court determine the secret, to consider a general knowledge of the industry, others through the proper channels to obtain information about the degree of difficulty and all the security measures taken. [18]

The general knowledge level of an industry, can not be public knowledge or common sense for themselves or as a secret. A factor that the court sometimes referred to as the "novelty" protected information must be different from the known information, and have commercial value. As the Supreme Court summarized the elements of trade secrets, said: "if only because the novel is generally known, then, some kind of novelty is necessary, therefore, trade secrets, the secret is at least refers to the minimum level of novelty. "[19]

Others through the proper channels to obtain information about the degree of difficulty is if the competitors by observation of the listed products, you can easily access relevant information through a public offering of publications and public records, there is no commercial secrets exist . As the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, "the commentary said:" If the information in trade journals, reference books or publications, it is easy to get. "[20] Only the owner has a commercial value, the competitors to take the proper means is difficult to obtain information that is trade secrets.

All taken security measures, measures to prevent a third party access to information and requirements for employees, business partners confidentiality measures. Moreover, the security measures mentioned here is all based on specific situations taken reasonable measures, not excessive or extreme measures. "Uniform Trade Secrets Act", commented: "reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy, has warned employees to trade secrets exist, trade secrets is limited to the 'need to know the scope of' control out of the factory on the other hand, shows, industry publications, advertising and other negligence and disclosure of information, can not be protected. [21]

"DuPont v. Christopher" case discussed in this article, based on the plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff spent a huge amount of money after a long study developed a new method of manufacturing methanol, the method enables the plaintiff in The market has a higher than competitors' strengths, and the plaintiff to take the necessary security measures, and therefore meets the above three requirements, enjoy the right to trade secrets.

In the GATT Uruguay Round negotiations, the formation of a "Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, the first time, protection of trade secrets included in international conventions. Very interesting is that the three of them for the requirements of trade secrets, and the above-mentioned elements of trade secrets is basically the same. Namely: the information is secret, as a whole or combination of ingredients is not engaged in information work in related fields generally known or easily accessible;-related information has commercial value because it is secret; and the legal owner of the informants specific circumstances, to take reasonable security measures. Under the agreement, the natural and legal persons can prevent unauthorized access to or use of trade secrets, disclosed in a manner contrary to honest commercial practices. [22]

It can be said that the "secret" is the most central elements of the three constituent elements of the trade secrets. In almost every trade secret cases, the relevant information has a secret, always become a bone of contention of the plaintiff and the defendant. "DuPont v. Christopher" case, the defendant also suggested that they shoot the DuPont plant, and provide photos to a third party, there is no infringement. Because they are shooting in the public air, that is not in breach of the Government's aviation regulations, there is no fraud or illegal acts exist. In other words, DuPont's production methods are exposed to public view, does not belong to the secrets of preventive measures taken.

For this issue, the court's view, as long as the owner of trade secrets has taken reasonable precautions to comply with legal requirements related to security measures do not have to be too heavy or extreme measures. The Court noted that the plaintiff's factory is under construction. After the completion of construction, from the air will not see the plaintiff's production process, but now from the air and observed the plaintiff's trade secrets. In this case, not too much to require the plaintiff to the unfinished construction of the plant plus the roof, to prevent others from the air to observe the production process. If, if so, that is, force the plaintiff to spend huge amounts of money to beware of the "naughty trick. "We can not ask a person or company to take unreasonable precautions, to prevent others to do the things he should not be first to do preventive measures against predatory eyes we can request to be reasonable, but the needle inserted into the The fortress is an unreasonable request. we have no reason to impose such liability in the industry, the inventor of the head, so as to protect their creative achievements. "the court said:" Perhaps shall build the fence and the roof, to file open cast


V.