Law in Business

Law in Business
Source: Saunders, K. M., & Golden, N. (2018). Skill or secret? — the line between trade secrets and employee general skills and knowledge. Journal of Law and Business, 15(1), 61-99.
This article primarily focuses on how employees should treat trade secrets legally. The authors argue that as agents or former agents of companies, employees should not disclose trade secrets or any other important confidently information to anyone. Neither should they use it. However, an employee is free to utilize general skills, knowledge, and/ or experience that he or she may have gained on a current or former job without being accused of trade secret misappropriation. This law is related to two legal concepts: employee mobility and protect competition. Nevertheless, the difference between general knowledge and trade secrets is usually not clear. Even the courts in different jurisdictions have not be consistent about what is what between the two. In this article, the authors document the results of a study that was undertaken to investigate the factors that most courts often use to differentiate between trade secrets and general knowledge in related cases.
This article is legally important since it addresses trade secrets law and the agency law. An agency relationship is one in which there is a principal on whose behalf and benefit an agent acts. Normally, the principal freely chooses an agent to act on their behalf. The choosing is essentially the delegation of authority to the agent to make him or her able to do some things legally for the principal. The delegation of authority could be actual or could be through the principal’s actions that may lead a third party to believe that an agent has the authority to do something on behalf of the principal.
An employee’s right to utilize their skill, experience and knowledge enhances public interest in employee mobility, prevents the restraint of fair and legitimate competition, and may advance the employee’s career. In most cases, employees gain skills, knowledge, and also get refined from their employment experience. Nevertheless, it is difficult to differentiate between the employer’s crucial trade secrets and his or her employee’s general skills and knowledge. This is particularly difficult when the skills or knowledge of the employee are rare or superior. In most cases, the courts usually repeat the previous rule and do not explain the manner in which they arrived at their decision.
Source: Franck, J-U., & Peitz, M. (2018). Suppliers as forgotten cartel victims. Journal of Law & Business, 15(1), 17-59.
This article is all about the antitrust law. The antitrust law has frequently allowed purchasers of products from price fixing cartels to get compensation even when they are not the buyers but are instead downstream companies in the supply chain. The antitrust law, nevertheless, does not appreciate the facts that cartel suppliers are in a position that is similar to that of the purchasers of the cartel’s products in the sense that they also have to cut their output. They have to cut their output because high cartel prices often end up reducing demand and reducing the inputs that the cartels demand from the suppliers. The cartel suppliers often have to reduce their prices in response to reduced demand to sell more of their supplies. Thus, an overcharge by a cartel has effects not only on direct purchasers but also on the profits/ revenues of those on the backend of the supply chain. It has been argued severally that courts ought to modify the doctrine because it basically limits antitrust standing to direct buyers. Even though this would be a big change in the federal law but it would still be in agreement with current legislations, in jurisdictions that already award antitrust standing to purchasers who buy indirectly.
As of now, the antitrust law allows component makers to only sue for damages on condition that they have been a part of the purchaser model and that they have either added a component to the final product themselves or they have purchased it directly from a manufacturer. The current doctrine focuses only on direct buyers/ purchasers and protects only those who have paid a price fixed by the cartels have the necessary right needed to successfully sue for damages. The cartels’ actions usually result in harm to the suppliers as explained before. Allowing cartels to escape penalties for the harm they cause to suppliers is unfair. It also follows that for corrective justice and to serve as a deterrence to other people of their kind, the law ought to enable component makers/ suppliers to also have the same sort of redress since they also suffer from the actions of the cartels. If this happens, it won’t necessarily change how damages are calculated nowadays. Courts nowadays award direct buyers with “overcharge damages” that are similar to the price inflation by cartels and then multiply it with the total sales. Awarding sellers and suppliers will only require the courts to tweak their calculations slightly to get a figure that is equal to the amount overcharged by the cartels.
Source: Edelman, M. (2018). Lack of integrity? Rebutting the myth that U. S. commercial sports leagues have an intellectual property right to sports gambling proceeds. Journal of Law and Business, 15(1), 1-16.
This latest article provides an explanation of how state-funding sports gambling will not infringe on the IP (Intellectual Property) rights of sports leagues in the United States and that for this reason there is no legitimate reason for states to ask licensed operators to pay “integrity fees” to the leagues. The first part of this article explains how America’s intellectual property legislations are applied and how they relate to sports gambling (state-sponsored). The second part looks at how two extra state IP laws the hot news doctrine and the right of publicity can apply in the case of sports gambling.
With regards to patent law, the article defines it as a collection of IP laws that offer exclusive rights to innovators for a limited time period. The principle on which this law is based is in the US constitution that grants the federal government the power to secure investors and authors the exclusive rights to their creations. With regards to copyright law, this article says it also constitutionally anchored but deals exclusively with artistic content. To be able to get a copyright protection, one must produce something they have originally authored and a fixed medium of expression.
Lastly, there is trademark law. It offers protection for brand identifiers such as logos and statements. The purpose of this law is to enable organizations and individuals to further develop and to closely control the popularity associated with their brand. The state law right of publicity focuses on the use of someone’s brand identifier without their permission and for commercial gain. Many states have right to publicity laws. However, courts usually have to balance between this right and the first amendment which promotes free speech. Therefore, regardless of how broadly you define the state right to publicity, it is very difficult for leagues to demand the payment of integrity fees because of the first amendment and similar free speech principles in the constitution.