Claiming Stolen Information in an NDA Set Up: A unilateral NDA is created in the state of Rhode Island between a Receiving Party and a Disclosing Party. This is a basic patent NDA that grants the Receiving Party the ability to see the un-patented information, which is labelled as confidential. As confidential information, the NDA states the Receiving Party is not allowed to disclose this information (be it intentionally or unintentionally) until the agreement expires nor is it allowed to patent the information. In said NDA, there is a clause that states (in legalese), "If the Receiving Party is to violate the Agreement by selling any confidential information mentioned in the Agreement, or use the confidential information to develop their own working device, all assets generated as a result of the confidential information (i.e. money gained by building and selling the device) shall become the property of the Disclosing Party." There is no clause in the NDA that states anything like, "the NDA is invalid if information labelled as confidential is leaked by the Receiving Party." The NDA only says that the Receiving Party shall be prosecuted for a breach of contract. In more severe cases, the clause from the previous paragraph (second paragraph) will be used to compensate the Disclosing Party. Question: Can this clause be upheld in court? Would the clause actually enable the Disclosing Party to seize any assets the Receiving Party had generated with the confidential information, assuming both parties signed on and that the courts were able to quantify the net worth of all assets generated by the leaked confidential information? Thank you.
Yes The parties have agreed that the remedy for a breach will be transfer of assets gained as a result. This is not a penalty and seems perfectly valid.
Does this mean that if the employee leaves the company, and then creates or gain an intellectual property right, does the company own that right ? No. The reference to &quot;the future&quot; pertains only to the IPRs of inventions that ensued in the course of his employment. Even if the employer alleged that the clause also encompasses post-employment creations and/or post-employment acquisitions of IPR, such extension would be unconscionable (and therefore null and void).
This supposes that the patentable concept can’t be learned form the operation of the whole program and hiding the invention while making use of the invention in public is not a disclosure. However, in the US there is a famous case In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 783, 113 USPQ 289, 292 (CCPA 1957); Hall v. Macneale, 107 U.S. 90, 96-97 (1882); Ex parte Kuklo, 25 USPQ2d 1387, 1390 (Bd. Pat. App. &amp; Inter. 1992) that concluded a public demonstration that didn’t expose the inner workings did start the clock on a bar to patentability. See previous question https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/20886/would-the-demonstration-of-an-invention-be-considered-public-disclosure The answer (from me) has the caveat that this is a pre-AIA case and courts might come to a different answer under that current law. The U.S. has viewed public use, especially commercial public use, as disqualifying (after a grace period) but the rest of the world puts its emphasis on actual disclosure of the inventive concept so this result might be different elsewhere. One thought experiment would be to analogize with an article in a widely available journal with the words Don’t read the article that starts on page 19 on the cover. From a disclosure point of view I do not think that is different from it being possible, but illegal, to read.
So-called AI software does not enjoy a special legal status (at present: one never knows what new law might be added). The question of whether any software can be distributed "safely" or "responsibly" is also not a legal issue. Nor is "true sentience" a relevant consideration, and nothing is guaranteed. When you distribute software of any kind, there is an implied warranty that the product is "fit", and if software kills you, you may be able to sue the creator for negligence. A software creator may then want to disclaim liability, by saying "WARNING: THIS PROGRAM MAY KILL YOU. OCP IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY INJURIES ARISING FROM USE OF THIS PRODUCT". This may or may not actually remove liability. In the UK "liability for negligence occasioning death or personal injury cannot be excluded", so such a disclaimer will not prevent a suit against the manufacturer. In the US, the issue is determined at the level of the state – here is a summary of the law in the states. Probably the primary question would be whether such a disclaimer is an unconscionable term, and the second question is whether the act constituted gross negligence (not simply "negligence"). Mississippi exceptionally does not allow disclaimers, but even then, it does allow disclaiming liability when it comes to computer hardware and software. A software disclaimer is not inherently unconscionable, though perhaps some specific disclaimer would be found to be. Courts typically disfavor disclaimers in the case of gross negligence, and again determining what constitutes "gross negligence" is determined on a state by state basis. If the act shows "reckless indifference to the rights of others" and "failure to use even slight care or conduct that is so careless as to show com­plete disregard for the rights and safety of others", then the act might be grossly negligent.
It seems like some law must have been breached during the sharing of this information? Possibly, even probably. The scrutiny of your personal account in order to glean personal data (your IP address) and then using that personal data to match accounts may contravene Recital 50 of the GDPR: The processing of personal data for purposes other than those for which the personal data were initially collected should be allowed only where the processing is compatible with the purposes for which the personal data were initially collected. If the website terms which you agreed to don't include this data matching, then that processing is not lawful. The rest of Recital 50 is relevant and worth quoting in full: If the processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller, Union or Member State law may determine and specify the tasks and purposes for which the further processing should be regarded as compatible and lawful. Further processing for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes should be considered to be compatible lawful processing operations. The legal basis provided by Union or Member State law for the processing of personal data may also provide a legal basis for further processing. In order to ascertain whether a purpose of further processing is compatible with the purpose for which the personal data are initially collected, the controller, after having met all the requirements for the lawfulness of the original processing, should take into account, inter alia: any link between those purposes and the purposes of the intended further processing; the context in which the personal data have been collected, in particular the reasonable expectations of data subjects based on their relationship with the controller as to their further use; the nature of the personal data; the consequences of the intended further processing for data subjects; and the existence of appropriate safeguards in both the original and intended further processing operations. It seems to me that an anonymous account could reasonably expect that the &quot;further processing&quot; of data matching is not in the public interest, an exercise of official authority, scientific or historical research or statistical. There is no link between the data matching exercise and the purpose for which IP addresses are normally collected: the operation and physical security of the website. Now, it may well be that the website terms do allow this data matching to discover links between accounts, or in any case prohibit having two accounts and allow reasonable methods to discover such links. It's also possible that a court has ordered the processing (as Iñaki Viggers has mentioned. We don't have that information; but ostensibly one wouldn't normally expect a personal account to be examined in this way, and certainly wouldn't expect any link discovered to be relayed to a third party.
In the US, "insider trading" includes both legal and illegal versions. When a corporate employee buys or sells shares of their company, they are insiders and they are trading (there is a requirement to report to the government). The illegal version involves breach of fiduciary duty or confidence. The relevant section of the federal regulations is 17 CFR 240.10b on "Manipulative and Deceptive Devices and Contrivances", and you will note that the section does not rely on the term "insider" in the law part, instead it directly characterizes what acts are illegal. Thus it would not matter, from a legal perspective, if someone considers you an insider. It is illegal to trade in securities using a “manipulative, deceptive, or other fraudulent device or contrivance”. This relates to what is commonly known as insider trading via rule 240.10b5-1, by defining as manipulative and deceptive trading on the basis of material nonpublic information about that security or issuer, in breach of a duty of trust or confidence that is owed directly, indirectly, or derivatively, to the issuer of that security or the shareholders of that issuer, or to any other person who is the source of the material nonpublic information (emphasis added to focus on the core requirements). Whether or not you have a "duty of trust or confidence" is determined by common law standards, that is, it depends on how courts have ruled on similar matters. For instance if the CEO of Apple tells you "Our computers explode and it's gonna be on the news tonight, the stock is gonna tank, but it would be illegal for you to act on that information", then it would be illegal, because you are aware that the CEO has a duty to not use that information (thus you "inherit" the duty). This also holds if he doesn't tell you that acting on the information, since it is expected that you know that the CEO of Apple could not legally act on that information (even if in fact you are unaware of the law -- ignorance of the law doesn't get you anywhere good). However, if you are unaware and could not know that the person making the factual disclosure is divulging information that he has a duty to shut up about, then you might not get prosecuted.
Your question has two distinct aspects which have to be considered separately: criminal law and civil law. I will give an opinion on both aspects, but first I have to give you a word of warning: This case is not clear in the sense that the law can be immediately apply. For a full answer you need the services of a practicing lawyer who does the necessary research. I have a degree in German Law and I have had some practice in IT law, so I know what I am talking about, but I am currently not practicing it and I have done no research for this case. So please, pretty please, don't base any important decision on my opinion. It is a mere guidance, not more. Criminal Law The German Criminal Code (StGB) specifies two cyber crimes explicitly: Computer Fraud (Computerbetrug, § 263a StGB), which you violate when you gain some illegal monetary advantage using a computer, for example a hacker using your stolen credit card data to transfer funds to his account. Computer Sabotage (Computersabotage, § 303b StGB), which applies when you cause damage with a computer, for example a hacker attacking the power grid. The second option clearly does not apply here, but the first one could. That would depend on the answer to a couple of questions, most importantly if a user would gain some monetary advantage at your expense and if that advantage would be illegal. The first of these questions (advantage at your expense) already does not have a clear and universal answer. As it is quite common with fraud, this criminal law question has a civil law aspect (more on that on part two of the answer). The two ways how this could create an advantage to an attacker world be... A contract would not be enacted between you and the attacker, but he would take advantage of you believing in the contract's validity. This option would though probably not apply here, judging from the (spoiler alert) civil law part of the question. A valid contract would be created, but the terms and conditions would not apply and that would cause an illegal financial advantage for the attacker at your cost. Since the base contract would still be in effect and that comes with the obligation to pay, that advantage would have to be in the terms and conditions not applying. You can construct such a case, but that would depend on the terms in question, so there can not be an answer here. There is though a good chance that the terms would still apply (see below), so there will probably be no damage. The other aspect is if this advantage would be through illegal use of the system, which is an interesting question in your case, since the link is publicly accessible. But, then again you can also fake a POST, so you can argue that it is always possible to make the terms not appear. An aspect to be considered though, is that merely attempting computer fraud is already an offense. An attacker who thinks he can gain a monetary advantage from such an attack could be still punished, even if it is not even possible to commit the crime due to the circumstances (this by itself is an interesting question in criminal law). The bigger danger that I see is that your solution makes it easy for an attacker to make their own site and then use your public link to book on your site (in a man in the middle attack). That would clearly be an offense, but it would be the attacker's not your client's. But since your success depends on the trustworthiness of your site, I would recommend to look for a safer solution (such as POST with https). To summarize that part: There is a possibility that accessing the site in the described way is a crime, but I would say it is rather not due to the lack of damage. It is though possible that an attacker still commits a crime by attempting such an attack. You should in any case make your site safer to make it harder to commit MITM attacks. Civil Law The civil law side is whether the terms can be accepted in the described way. This is a case for the law of general terms and conditions (Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen or AGB). In a few words, for AGB to apply, the have to be notified to the client and he has to accept them. If your site is used how it is supposed to be, both conditions are met. In the (invalid) way you have described, the first condition is in question. Since the user knows that using the described URL means accepting the terms, I would consider the second condition to be satisfied. So how can the terms apply if the user has not seen them? In case you provide no shortcut to the accepted link and you also prevent that it can be found in another way (e.g. through a search engine), the direct link would be equivalent to someone signing terms and conditions without reading them, although he has had a chance to do so. That would still make the terms apply, because the client would have been given the chance to read them, which is the only thing the seller needs to do. So chances are that your terms would still apply (thus negating the financial advantage necessary for a crime). However, AGB law is a complex subject that is generally handled by specialists. Any opinion of someone who is not such a specialist has to be handled with care. That includes my opinion.
Quitting before the start date: is the non compete enforceable? The non-compete is unenforceable unless the employer has provided you with material information that you can use to the detriment of the employer. Even in that case, the non-compete as outlined in your description seemingly exceeds the legitimate interests of the employer (see art. 2089 of the Civil Code of Québec). This means that the non-compete clause would be curtailed in court because the employer cannot prove that his business (or market share) encompasses the area depicted in the clause. The reason of being of non-compete clauses is to protect the employer from a potential misuse of information the employee obtained pursuant to his employment, such as trade secrets and information about clients. The fact that you are a fresh graduate suggests that you are dealing with just some typical intermediary who really has no &quot;trade secrets&quot; and who is not providing you with key information, let alone for a job that is scheduled to start five months later. Non-compete clauses that are overly broad contravene public policy in that they would singlehandedly exclude civilians from the labor market and disproportionately impair free trade.