共同控制人是共同商业秘密所有人吗?欧盟数据保护法和美国信息隐私法告诉我们的商业秘密法

Tristan Radtke
{"title":"共同控制人是共同商业秘密所有人吗?欧盟数据保护法和美国信息隐私法告诉我们的商业秘密法","authors":"Tristan Radtke","doi":"10.54648/gplr2023004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article focusses on (joint) trade secret ownership as a (neglected) aspect of European Union (EU) and United States (US) Trade Secret Law. The article shows that Information Privacy Law and Data Protection Law, respectively, and Trade Secret Law intersect. This intersection can be used to address not only the issue of unclear trade secret ownership in relation with personal data, but also the issue of power imbalance raised by considering two or more parties with entirely different bargaining positions as jointly responsible under Data Protection Law, in particular under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In this regard, US Information Privacy and Trade Secret Law as well as EU Data Protection and Trade Secret Law and the underlying ownership and liability concepts are analysed and compared to each other. The article shows that factors for (joint) control as developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (Cases Wirtschaftsakademie, Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW), and Fashion ID) can be adapted by means of interpretation in essence under EU and US Trade Secret Law. Thus, joint controllers are often considered joint owners of the respective personal data as a trade secret. According to this approach, the parties are reciprocally entitled to prevent disclosures by each other beyond what is explicitly or implicitly agreed. Such right can act as a lever for weaker parties when bargaining with ‘stronger’ parties as necessary under Data Protection Law. At the same time, the essentially unified approach of determining trade secret ownership and data protection controllership provides for more clarity when it comes to the determination of trade secret ownership.\nJoint Control, Trade Secrets, Ownership, Joint Ownership, UTSA, Fashion ID, Trade Secret Directive, GDPR, FTCA, US","PeriodicalId":127582,"journal":{"name":"Global Privacy Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are Joint Controllers Joint Trade Secret Owners? What EU Data Protection and US Information Privacy Law Tell Us About Trade Secret Law\",\"authors\":\"Tristan Radtke\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/gplr2023004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article focusses on (joint) trade secret ownership as a (neglected) aspect of European Union (EU) and United States (US) Trade Secret Law. The article shows that Information Privacy Law and Data Protection Law, respectively, and Trade Secret Law intersect. This intersection can be used to address not only the issue of unclear trade secret ownership in relation with personal data, but also the issue of power imbalance raised by considering two or more parties with entirely different bargaining positions as jointly responsible under Data Protection Law, in particular under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In this regard, US Information Privacy and Trade Secret Law as well as EU Data Protection and Trade Secret Law and the underlying ownership and liability concepts are analysed and compared to each other. The article shows that factors for (joint) control as developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (Cases Wirtschaftsakademie, Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW), and Fashion ID) can be adapted by means of interpretation in essence under EU and US Trade Secret Law. Thus, joint controllers are often considered joint owners of the respective personal data as a trade secret. According to this approach, the parties are reciprocally entitled to prevent disclosures by each other beyond what is explicitly or implicitly agreed. Such right can act as a lever for weaker parties when bargaining with ‘stronger’ parties as necessary under Data Protection Law. At the same time, the essentially unified approach of determining trade secret ownership and data protection controllership provides for more clarity when it comes to the determination of trade secret ownership.\\nJoint Control, Trade Secrets, Ownership, Joint Ownership, UTSA, Fashion ID, Trade Secret Directive, GDPR, FTCA, US\",\"PeriodicalId\":127582,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Privacy Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Privacy Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/gplr2023004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Privacy Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gplr2023004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文着重分析了欧盟和美国商业秘密法中被忽视的(共同)商业秘密所有权问题。文章表明,信息隐私法和数据保护法分别与商业秘密法有交叉。这种交集不仅可以用来解决与个人数据相关的商业秘密所有权不明确的问题,还可以用来解决在数据保护法下,特别是在通用数据保护条例(GDPR)下,将具有完全不同谈判立场的两个或多个方视为共同责任而引起的权力不平衡问题。在这方面,对美国的《信息隐私与商业秘密法》和欧盟的《数据保护与商业秘密法》及其相关的所有权和责任概念进行了分析和比较。本文表明,欧盟法院(CJEU)制定的(联合)控制因素(Wirtschaftsakademie、耶和华见证会(JW)和时尚ID)可以通过欧盟和美国商业秘密法的本质解释来适应。因此,共同控制人通常被视为作为商业秘密的各自个人数据的共同所有人。根据这种方法,双方都有权防止彼此披露超出明确或隐含同意的信息。根据《数据保护法》,在与“较强”的一方进行必要的谈判时,这种权利可以作为较弱一方的杠杆。同时,基本统一的商业秘密权属认定和数据保护控制者认定方法,使商业秘密权属认定更加清晰。共同控制,商业秘密,所有权,共同所有权,UTSA,时尚ID,商业秘密指令,GDPR, FTCA,美国
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Are Joint Controllers Joint Trade Secret Owners? What EU Data Protection and US Information Privacy Law Tell Us About Trade Secret Law
The article focusses on (joint) trade secret ownership as a (neglected) aspect of European Union (EU) and United States (US) Trade Secret Law. The article shows that Information Privacy Law and Data Protection Law, respectively, and Trade Secret Law intersect. This intersection can be used to address not only the issue of unclear trade secret ownership in relation with personal data, but also the issue of power imbalance raised by considering two or more parties with entirely different bargaining positions as jointly responsible under Data Protection Law, in particular under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In this regard, US Information Privacy and Trade Secret Law as well as EU Data Protection and Trade Secret Law and the underlying ownership and liability concepts are analysed and compared to each other. The article shows that factors for (joint) control as developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (Cases Wirtschaftsakademie, Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW), and Fashion ID) can be adapted by means of interpretation in essence under EU and US Trade Secret Law. Thus, joint controllers are often considered joint owners of the respective personal data as a trade secret. According to this approach, the parties are reciprocally entitled to prevent disclosures by each other beyond what is explicitly or implicitly agreed. Such right can act as a lever for weaker parties when bargaining with ‘stronger’ parties as necessary under Data Protection Law. At the same time, the essentially unified approach of determining trade secret ownership and data protection controllership provides for more clarity when it comes to the determination of trade secret ownership. Joint Control, Trade Secrets, Ownership, Joint Ownership, UTSA, Fashion ID, Trade Secret Directive, GDPR, FTCA, US
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial: Key Privacy Concepts in the EU and Canada The Personal Data Under the GDPR: Concept, Elements, and Boundaries News: APAC Privacy News Collection of Personal Information in Canadian Law Case Note: Strengthening the Role of Google? Recent Developments in the Right to Be Forgotten Case Law of the CJEU (TU and RE v. Google LLC, C-460/20)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1