生命、自由与商业秘密:刑事司法系统中的知识产权

IF 4.9 1区 社会学 Q1 Social Sciences Stanford Law Review Pub Date : 2017-02-20 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2920883
Rebecca Wexler
{"title":"生命、自由与商业秘密:刑事司法系统中的知识产权","authors":"Rebecca Wexler","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2920883","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The criminal justice system is becoming automated. At every stage, from policing to evidence to parole, machine learning and other computer systems guide outcomes. Widespread debates over the pros and cons of these technologies have overlooked a crucial issue: ownership. Developers often claim that details about how their tools work are trade secrets and refuse to disclose that information to criminal defendants or their attorneys. The introduction of intellectual property claims into the criminal justice system raises under-theorized tensions between life, liberty, and property interests. This Article offers the first wide-ranging account of trade secret evidence in criminal cases, and develops a framework to address the problems that result. In sharp contrast to the general view among trial courts, legislatures, and scholars alike, the Article argues that trade secrets should not be privileged in criminal proceedings. A criminal trade secret privilege is ahistorical; harmful to defendants; and unnecessary to protect the interests of the secret holder. Meanwhile, compared to substantive trade secret law, the privilege overprotects intellectual property. Further, privileging trade secrets in criminal proceedings fails to serve the theoretical purpose of either trade secret law or privilege law. The trade secret inquiry sheds new light on how evidence rules do, and should, function differently in civil and criminal cases.","PeriodicalId":51386,"journal":{"name":"Stanford Law Review","volume":"70 1","pages":"1343"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2920883","citationCount":"100","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Life, Liberty, and Trade Secrets: Intellectual Property in the Criminal Justice System\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca Wexler\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2920883\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The criminal justice system is becoming automated. At every stage, from policing to evidence to parole, machine learning and other computer systems guide outcomes. Widespread debates over the pros and cons of these technologies have overlooked a crucial issue: ownership. Developers often claim that details about how their tools work are trade secrets and refuse to disclose that information to criminal defendants or their attorneys. The introduction of intellectual property claims into the criminal justice system raises under-theorized tensions between life, liberty, and property interests. This Article offers the first wide-ranging account of trade secret evidence in criminal cases, and develops a framework to address the problems that result. In sharp contrast to the general view among trial courts, legislatures, and scholars alike, the Article argues that trade secrets should not be privileged in criminal proceedings. A criminal trade secret privilege is ahistorical; harmful to defendants; and unnecessary to protect the interests of the secret holder. Meanwhile, compared to substantive trade secret law, the privilege overprotects intellectual property. Further, privileging trade secrets in criminal proceedings fails to serve the theoretical purpose of either trade secret law or privilege law. The trade secret inquiry sheds new light on how evidence rules do, and should, function differently in civil and criminal cases.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stanford Law Review\",\"volume\":\"70 1\",\"pages\":\"1343\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2920883\",\"citationCount\":\"100\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stanford Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2920883\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stanford Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2920883","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 100

摘要

刑事司法系统正在变得自动化。在每个阶段,从警务到取证再到假释,机器学习和其他计算机系统都会指导结果。关于这些技术利弊的广泛争论忽视了一个关键问题:所有权。开发人员经常声称他们的工具如何工作的细节是商业机密,并拒绝向刑事被告或他们的律师透露这些信息。在刑事司法系统中引入知识产权索赔,引发了生命、自由和财产利益之间理论上的紧张关系。本文首次对刑事案件中的商业秘密证据进行了广泛的阐述,并提出了一个解决由此产生的问题的框架。与初审法院、立法机关和学者们的普遍观点形成鲜明对比的是,该条主张商业秘密不应在刑事诉讼中享有特权。刑事商业秘密特权是非历史性的;对被告有害的;而且没有必要保护秘密持有者的利益。同时,与实体商业秘密法相比,该特权对知识产权的保护力度过大。此外,在刑事诉讼中给予商业秘密特权既不符合商业秘密法的理论目的,也不符合特权法的理论目的。对商业秘密的调查揭示了证据规则在民事和刑事案件中的作用和作用是如何不同的。
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
Life, Liberty, and Trade Secrets: Intellectual Property in the Criminal Justice System
The criminal justice system is becoming automated. At every stage, from policing to evidence to parole, machine learning and other computer systems guide outcomes. Widespread debates over the pros and cons of these technologies have overlooked a crucial issue: ownership. Developers often claim that details about how their tools work are trade secrets and refuse to disclose that information to criminal defendants or their attorneys. The introduction of intellectual property claims into the criminal justice system raises under-theorized tensions between life, liberty, and property interests. This Article offers the first wide-ranging account of trade secret evidence in criminal cases, and develops a framework to address the problems that result. In sharp contrast to the general view among trial courts, legislatures, and scholars alike, the Article argues that trade secrets should not be privileged in criminal proceedings. A criminal trade secret privilege is ahistorical; harmful to defendants; and unnecessary to protect the interests of the secret holder. Meanwhile, compared to substantive trade secret law, the privilege overprotects intellectual property. Further, privileging trade secrets in criminal proceedings fails to serve the theoretical purpose of either trade secret law or privilege law. The trade secret inquiry sheds new light on how evidence rules do, and should, function differently in civil and criminal cases.
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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
2.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
Does nationality affect nurses' information security participation? A comparative study in Iran and Poland. "Sorry” Is Never Enough: How State Apology Laws Fail to Reduce Medical Malpractice Liability Risk. What Is Federalism in Healthcare For? "Sorry” Is Never Enough: How State Apology Laws Fail to Reduce Medical Malpractice Liability Risk. Interrogated with Intellectual Disabilities: The Risks of False Confession.
×
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