The Law and Theory of Trade Secrecy
Show Less

The Law and Theory of Trade Secrecy

A Handbook of Contemporary Research

Edited by Rochelle C. Dreyfuss and Katherine J. Strandburg

This timely Handbook marks a major shift in innovation studies, moving the focus of attention from the standard intellectual property regimes of copyright, patent, and trademark, to an exploration of trade secrecy and the laws governing know-how, tacit knowledge, and confidential relationships.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 4: Trade Secrecy and Common Law Confidentiality: The Problem of Multiple Regimes

Charles Tait Graves


Charles Tait Graves*1 I. INTRODUCTION Scholars and practitioners interested in analysing trade secret law at the level of theory – that is, exploring its economic, social and philosophical underpinnings in order to recommend policy objectives – face a serious obstacle. Unlike patent or copyright law, which are unitary regimes governed by statutes and, ultimately, the Supreme Court, what we call ‘trade secret law’ is much more amorphous. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to speak of trade secret law as a single body of law when analysing its effects or offering policy proposals for reform. The most important example is the definition of secrecy itself. Secrecy is interpreted differently under different tort and contract claims, and regulated differently under non-competition covenants. In some cases, courts have recognized quasi-trade secret claims encompassing non-secret information said to fall within some lesser, but still protectable, category of information. In recent years, this question has come to the forefront as courts have struggled to decide whether the Uniform Trade Secrets Act pre-empts alternative tort formulations in favor of a single definition of protectable information. This chapter will explore how the theoretical discussion of trade secret law is frustrated by the multiple regimes of confidentiality available in most jurisdictions. Whether one’s interest in trade secret law touches on innovation policy, employee interests, or merely describing trade secret law as a body of law subject to predictable results and internal consistency, it is important to understand the confusion among courts and practicing attorneys in everyday litigation....

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.