工作知识:商业秘密、限制性雇佣契约和企业知识产权的兴起,1800-1920

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Hastings Law Journal Pub Date : 2001-03-22 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.262010
Catherine L. Fisk
{"title":"工作知识:商业秘密、限制性雇佣契约和企业知识产权的兴起,1800-1920","authors":"Catherine L. Fisk","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.262010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The invention of trade secret doctrine in the mid-nineteenth century enabled employers to enjoin revelation of secret information by current or former employees. At the same time, courts expanded the permissible uses of post-employment covenants not to compete so as to prevent dissemination of knowledge. These doctrinal developments thus defined the bounds of permissible entrepreneurship. Equally as significant, these doctrines both generated and reflected a profoundly new perspective on the nature and control of workplace knowledge. This article examines the origins and development of the law of trade secrets and restrictive covenants through study of cases and treatises and through the study of corporate practices. Drawing on the archives of the Du Pont company, this article examines the ways in which a firm that was unusually aware of the value of employee intellectual property used law to achieve its goal of protecting its own secrets while learning new developments from others. The article analyzes how courts, firms, and workers attempted to reconcile the perceived demands of industrialization and the realities of factory work with the ideology of freedom of contract, and the corporate control of ideas with the ideology of free labor. Both the doctrine and the practice reflected the contestability during the nineteenth century of the inalienable attributes of self that lay at the foundation of the discourse of free labor. Drawing the line between what knowledge the firm could own and that which remained the possession of every free person was, in that context, an extraordinarily difficult task. The article concludes that the persistence today of the multifactored, fact-based reasonableness inquiry for restrictive covenants and of standardless, factual tests for the existence and the remedying of the misappropriation of trade secrets is evidence that the value choices at the heart of these legal issues remain as wrenching today as they were when courts first created the doctrines that set employee freedom to switch jobs on a collision course with the corporate control of intellectual property.","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":"52 1","pages":"441"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2001-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"39","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Working Knowledge: Trade Secrets, Restrictive Covenants in Employment, and the Rise of Corporate Intellectual Property, 1800-1920\",\"authors\":\"Catherine L. Fisk\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.262010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The invention of trade secret doctrine in the mid-nineteenth century enabled employers to enjoin revelation of secret information by current or former employees. At the same time, courts expanded the permissible uses of post-employment covenants not to compete so as to prevent dissemination of knowledge. These doctrinal developments thus defined the bounds of permissible entrepreneurship. Equally as significant, these doctrines both generated and reflected a profoundly new perspective on the nature and control of workplace knowledge. This article examines the origins and development of the law of trade secrets and restrictive covenants through study of cases and treatises and through the study of corporate practices. Drawing on the archives of the Du Pont company, this article examines the ways in which a firm that was unusually aware of the value of employee intellectual property used law to achieve its goal of protecting its own secrets while learning new developments from others. The article analyzes how courts, firms, and workers attempted to reconcile the perceived demands of industrialization and the realities of factory work with the ideology of freedom of contract, and the corporate control of ideas with the ideology of free labor. Both the doctrine and the practice reflected the contestability during the nineteenth century of the inalienable attributes of self that lay at the foundation of the discourse of free labor. Drawing the line between what knowledge the firm could own and that which remained the possession of every free person was, in that context, an extraordinarily difficult task. The article concludes that the persistence today of the multifactored, fact-based reasonableness inquiry for restrictive covenants and of standardless, factual tests for the existence and the remedying of the misappropriation of trade secrets is evidence that the value choices at the heart of these legal issues remain as wrenching today as they were when courts first created the doctrines that set employee freedom to switch jobs on a collision course with the corporate control of intellectual property.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46736,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hastings Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"441\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"39\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hastings Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.262010\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.262010","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 39

摘要

19世纪中期商业秘密原则的发明使雇主能够命令现任或前任雇员披露秘密信息。同时,法院扩大了聘后不竞争契约的允许用途,以防止知识的传播。因此,这些理论的发展界定了可允许的企业家精神的界限。同样重要的是,这些学说产生并反映了一种关于工作场所知识的性质和控制的深刻的新观点。本文通过对案例和论文的研究以及对公司实践的研究,考察了商业秘密法和限制性契约的起源和发展。本文以杜邦公司的档案为基础,考察了一家非常了解员工知识产权价值的公司如何利用法律来实现保护自己秘密的目标,同时从别人那里学习新的发展。本文分析了法院、企业和工人如何试图调和工业化的要求和工厂工作的现实与契约自由的意识形态,以及公司对思想的控制与自由劳动的意识形态。这一理论和实践都反映了在19世纪作为自由劳动话语基础的自我不可剥夺属性的可争议性。在这种情况下,在公司可以拥有的知识和每个自由的人仍然拥有的知识之间划清界限是一项极其困难的任务。本文的结论是,今天对限制性契约的多因素、基于事实的合理性调查和无标准的、对商业秘密侵权行为的存在和补救的事实检验证明,这些法律问题的核心价值选择,在今天仍然令人痛苦,就像法院最初创造出一种原则——将员工的换工作自由置于与公司对知识产权的控制相冲突的道路上——时一样。
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
Working Knowledge: Trade Secrets, Restrictive Covenants in Employment, and the Rise of Corporate Intellectual Property, 1800-1920
The invention of trade secret doctrine in the mid-nineteenth century enabled employers to enjoin revelation of secret information by current or former employees. At the same time, courts expanded the permissible uses of post-employment covenants not to compete so as to prevent dissemination of knowledge. These doctrinal developments thus defined the bounds of permissible entrepreneurship. Equally as significant, these doctrines both generated and reflected a profoundly new perspective on the nature and control of workplace knowledge. This article examines the origins and development of the law of trade secrets and restrictive covenants through study of cases and treatises and through the study of corporate practices. Drawing on the archives of the Du Pont company, this article examines the ways in which a firm that was unusually aware of the value of employee intellectual property used law to achieve its goal of protecting its own secrets while learning new developments from others. The article analyzes how courts, firms, and workers attempted to reconcile the perceived demands of industrialization and the realities of factory work with the ideology of freedom of contract, and the corporate control of ideas with the ideology of free labor. Both the doctrine and the practice reflected the contestability during the nineteenth century of the inalienable attributes of self that lay at the foundation of the discourse of free labor. Drawing the line between what knowledge the firm could own and that which remained the possession of every free person was, in that context, an extraordinarily difficult task. The article concludes that the persistence today of the multifactored, fact-based reasonableness inquiry for restrictive covenants and of standardless, factual tests for the existence and the remedying of the misappropriation of trade secrets is evidence that the value choices at the heart of these legal issues remain as wrenching today as they were when courts first created the doctrines that set employee freedom to switch jobs on a collision course with the corporate control of intellectual property.
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
期刊介绍: Hastings College of the Law was founded in 1878 as the first law department of the University of California, and today is one of the top-rated law schools in the United States. Its alumni span the globe and are among the most respected lawyers, judges and business leaders today. Hastings was founded in 1878 as the first law department of the University of California and is one of the most exciting and vibrant legal education centers in the nation. Our faculty are nationally renowned as both teachers and scholars.
期刊最新文献
Corporations and the Original Meaning of 'Citizens' in Article III Law of the State and Politics Beyond the Double Veto: Housing Plans as Preemptive Intergovernmental Compacts Unmasking the Right of Publicity History, Tradition, the Supreme Court, and the First Amendment
×
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