教授反对《2014年保护商业秘密法案》(S. 2267)和《2014年商业秘密保护法》(H.R. 5233)的信

David S. Levine, Sharon K. Sandeen
{"title":"教授反对《2014年保护商业秘密法案》(S. 2267)和《2014年商业秘密保护法》(H.R. 5233)的信","authors":"David S. Levine, Sharon K. Sandeen","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2699735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The undersigned are 31 professors from throughout the United States who teach and write extensively about intellectual property law, trade secret law, innovation policy and/or information law. We urge Congress to reject the proposed legislation to create a new private cause of action under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (“EEA”), known as the “Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2014” (“DTSA”) and the “Trade Secrets Protection Act of 2014” (“TSPA,” collectively, “the Acts”). As explained in Senator Coons’ press release announcing the introduction of the DTSA, \"In today’s electronic age, trade secrets can be stolen with a few keystrokes, and increasingly, they are stolen at the direction of a foreign government or for the benefit of a foreign competitor. These losses put U.S. jobs at risk and threaten incentives for continued investment in research and development. Current federal criminal law is insufficient.\"While we acknowledge the need to increase protection both domestically and internationally against domestic and foreign cyber-espionage, this is not the way to address those concerns. Instead, as explained below, the Acts will create or exacerbate many existing legal problems but solve none. Accordingly, we oppose their adoption.","PeriodicalId":208710,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Professors' Letter in Opposition to the 'Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2014' (S. 2267) and the 'Trade Secrets Protection Act of 2014' (H.R. 5233)\",\"authors\":\"David S. Levine, Sharon K. Sandeen\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2699735\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The undersigned are 31 professors from throughout the United States who teach and write extensively about intellectual property law, trade secret law, innovation policy and/or information law. We urge Congress to reject the proposed legislation to create a new private cause of action under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (“EEA”), known as the “Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2014” (“DTSA”) and the “Trade Secrets Protection Act of 2014” (“TSPA,” collectively, “the Acts”). As explained in Senator Coons’ press release announcing the introduction of the DTSA, \\\"In today’s electronic age, trade secrets can be stolen with a few keystrokes, and increasingly, they are stolen at the direction of a foreign government or for the benefit of a foreign competitor. These losses put U.S. jobs at risk and threaten incentives for continued investment in research and development. Current federal criminal law is insufficient.\\\"While we acknowledge the need to increase protection both domestically and internationally against domestic and foreign cyber-espionage, this is not the way to address those concerns. Instead, as explained below, the Acts will create or exacerbate many existing legal problems but solve none. Accordingly, we oppose their adoption.\",\"PeriodicalId\":208710,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2699735\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Patent Law/Intellectual Property (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2699735","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

下面署名的是来自美国各地的31位教授,他们在知识产权法、商业秘密法、创新政策和/或信息法方面进行了广泛的教学和写作。我们敦促国会拒绝根据《1996年经济间谍法》(“EEA”),即《2014年保护商业秘密法》(“DTSA”)和《2014年商业秘密保护法》(“TSPA”,统称“法案”)建立新的私人诉因的立法提案。正如库恩斯参议员在宣布推出DTSA的新闻稿中所解释的那样,“在当今的电子时代,商业机密只需敲击几下键盘就能被窃取,而且越来越多的人在外国政府的指导下或为了外国竞争对手的利益而窃取商业机密。”这些损失使美国的就业面临风险,并威胁到继续投资研发的动力。现行的联邦刑法是不够的。“虽然我们承认有必要在国内和国际上加强对国内外网络间谍活动的保护,但这不是解决这些担忧的方法。相反,正如下文所解释的,这些法案将造成或加剧许多现有的法律问题,但解决不了任何问题。因此,我们反对通过这些建议。
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
Professors' Letter in Opposition to the 'Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2014' (S. 2267) and the 'Trade Secrets Protection Act of 2014' (H.R. 5233)
The undersigned are 31 professors from throughout the United States who teach and write extensively about intellectual property law, trade secret law, innovation policy and/or information law. We urge Congress to reject the proposed legislation to create a new private cause of action under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (“EEA”), known as the “Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2014” (“DTSA”) and the “Trade Secrets Protection Act of 2014” (“TSPA,” collectively, “the Acts”). As explained in Senator Coons’ press release announcing the introduction of the DTSA, "In today’s electronic age, trade secrets can be stolen with a few keystrokes, and increasingly, they are stolen at the direction of a foreign government or for the benefit of a foreign competitor. These losses put U.S. jobs at risk and threaten incentives for continued investment in research and development. Current federal criminal law is insufficient."While we acknowledge the need to increase protection both domestically and internationally against domestic and foreign cyber-espionage, this is not the way to address those concerns. Instead, as explained below, the Acts will create or exacerbate many existing legal problems but solve none. Accordingly, we oppose their adoption.
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
FRAND in India Patent Citations - An Analysis of Quality Differences and Citing Practices in Hybrid Corn Licensing with Patent Competition The Logic of International Intellectual Property Protection Modeling Software Piracy Protection: Monopoly versus Duopoly
×
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