Abstract
According to a 2012 survey, 79% of Americans believe that removing confidential files from the office is grounds for termination. Yet 90% of employees think that their brethren do it anyway.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
File Trek, “FileTrek Survey: 90% of American Adults Believe People Share Company Confidential Information Outside the Company,” http://filetrek.com/press/2012/03/filetrek-survey-90-percent-of-adults-believe-people-share-company-confidential-information-outside-the-company, March 20, 2012.
See, e.g., O.R.C. § 1333.61 (D)(1)–(2).
See, e.g., Tewari De-Ox Systems v. Mountain States/Rosen, 637 F.3d 604 (5th Cir. 2011).
Compare Home Pride Foods, Inc. v. Johnson, 634 N.W.2d 774 (Neb. 2001) (customer list, which contained information on customers who previously placed orders and the amounts of those orders, was a “trade secret”), and ATC Distribution Group, Inc. v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts, 402 F.3d 700 (6th Cir. 2005) (customer lists were not trade secrets, because the names of customers could have been discovered from telephone book or similar legitimate sources).
Compare Amoco Production Co. v. Laird, 622 N.E.2d 912, 920–21 (Ind. 1993) (business plan for drilling based on information developed by sophisticated technology is a trade secret) and Care v. Service Systems Enterprises, Inc., 982 F.2d 1063, 1071–75 (7th Cir. 1992) (marketing and service strategy was not a trade secret, as it was either sufficiently obvious or easily duplicated).
See Vermont Microsystems, Inc. v. Autodesk, Inc., 88 F.3d 142 (2nd Cir. 1996) (protecting computer architecture and algorithms).
See, e.g., See Liberty Am. Ins. Group, Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1302 (M.D. Fla. 2001) (concluding that the plaintiff’s insurance rating software, including its source code, qualified as a protected trade secret).
Case No. 25093, 2010-Ohio-3388 (Ohio Ct. App. July 21, 2010).
See, e.g., Klick v. Crosstown State Bank of Ham Lake, 372 N.W.2d 85 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
Case No. 23875, 2011-Ohio-388 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2011).
Id.
See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Stoneham, 747 NE 2d 268 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000).
See Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp., 630 N.W.2d 438 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
See Picker Intern., Inc. v. Blanton, 756 F. Supp. 971 (N.D. Tex. 1990).
Black’s Law Dictionary 306 (6th ed. 1990).
AK Steel Corp. v. Earley, 809 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1340 (S.D. Ala. 2011).
Staffilino Chevrolet, Inc. v. Balk, 813 N.E.2d 940, 951 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).
These facts are taken from PhoneDog v. Kravitz, Case No. C 11-03474 MEJ, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129229 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2011).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Jonathan T. Hyman
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hyman, J.T. (2012). The Right to Confidentiality. In: The Employer Bill of Rights. Apress, Berkeley, CA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4302-4552-0_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4302-4552-0_10
Publisher Name: Apress, Berkeley, CA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4302-4551-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4302-4552-0
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)Apress Access Books