The Experts below are selected from a list of 213 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Widayati, Rahmasari Solawatul - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
KETENTUAN PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP PENGATURAN RAHASIA DAGANG (Studi Komparatif Antara Indonesia Dengan Amerika Serikat)
2019Co-Authors: Widayati, Rahmasari SolawatulAbstract:Rahmasari Solawatul Widayati, Afifah Kusumadara, S.H., LL.M., SJD., Moch.Zairul Alam, S.H., M.H. Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Brawijaya rahmasari.sw123@gmail.com ABSTRAK Hak Kekayaan Intelektual (HKI) terus berkembang disebabkan adanya kemajuan teknologi dan ilmu pengetahuan yang semakin berkembang. Perlindungan terhadap pemilik rahasia dagang tidak harus diatur dalam suatu undang-undang khusus karena hal tersebut dapat diatur melalui undang-undang khusus yang dapat memberikan perlindungan terhadap pemilik rahasia dagang sebagaimana diterapkan dalam negara Amerika Serikat (USA). Berdasarkan latar belakang tersebut muncul permasalahan:(1) Bagaimana pengaturan perlindungan terkait ruang lingkup dan jenis pelanggaran rahasia dagang menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2000 dengan Undang-Undang Amerika Serikat (USA)? (2) Bagaimana perbedaan penyelesaian kasus rahasia dagang di Indonesia dengan Amerika Serikat? Hasil penelitian ini adalah bahwa dari rumusan Pasal 39 ayat (1) TRIPs dapat kita ketahui bahwa ketentuan yang diatur dalam Pasal 39 TRIPs ini diadakan dengan tujuan untuk menjamin efektivitas pelaksanaan perlindungan atas persaingan usaha tidak sehat, yang diatur dalam Pasal 10bis Paris Convention (1967). Untuk keperluan penjaminan pelaksanaan perlindungan atas persaingan usaha tidak sehat inilah maka para anggota WTO diwajibkan untuk memberikan perlindungan atas informasi yang dirahasiakan tersebut, maupun atas data-data yang diserahkan kepada pemerintah atau agen pemerintah. Lingkup perlindungan Rahasia Dagang menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2000. Sedangkan lingkup perlindungan Rahasia Dagang menurut Uniform Trade Secret Act (UTSA), Economic Espionage Act yang di Amandemen menjadi Defend Trade Secret Act. Kata Kunci: Hak Kekayaan Intelektual, Pelindungan Hukum, Rahasia Dagang ABSTRAct Intellectual Property Rights is increasingly developing along with technological and science development. The protection for trade secret holders is regulated in a special law that provides protection for trade secret holders, and the USA applies this system. This view brings to the two research problems: 1) how is the protection regulated regarding the scope and type of violation of trade secrets according to Act Number 30 of 2000 and Act applied in the US? (2) How is the settlement of trade secret-related cases in Indonesia different from that in the US? This research reveals that according to the provisions of Article 39 paragraph (1) of TRIPs, Article 39 is aimed to guarantee the effectiveness in providing protection regarding unhealthy business competition, as regulated in Article 10bis Paris Convention (1967). Thus, the members of WTO are required to protect the confidential information, including the data submitted to the government or government agents. The protection of trade secrets is enActed in Act Number 30 of 2000, while the scope of protection given to trade secrets in Uniform Trade Secret Act (UTSA), Economic Espionage Act has been amended to Defend Trade Secret Act. Keywords: intellectual property rights, legal protection, trade secret
-
KETENTUAN PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP PENGATURAN RAHASIA DAGANG (Studi Komparatif Antara Indonesia Dengan Amerika Serikat)
2019Co-Authors: Widayati, Rahmasari SolawatulAbstract:Rahmasari Solawatul Widayati, Afifah Kusumadara, S.H., LL.M., SJD., Moch.Zairul Alam, S.H., M.H. Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Brawijaya rahmasari.sw123@gmail.com ABSTRAK Hak Kekayaan Intelektual (HKI) terus berkembang disebabkan adanya kemajuan teknologi dan ilmu pengetahuan yang semakin berkembang. Perlindungan terhadap pemilik rahasia dagang tidak harus diatur dalam suatu undang-undang khusus karena hal tersebut dapat diatur melalui undang-undang khusus yang dapat memberikan perlindungan terhadap pemilik rahasia dagang sebagaimana diterapkan dalam negara Amerika Serikat (USA). Berdasarkan latar belakang tersebut muncul permasalahan:(1) Bagaimana pengaturan perlindungan terkait ruang lingkup dan jenis pelanggaran rahasia dagang menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2000 dengan Undang-Undang Amerika Serikat (USA)? (2) Bagaimana perbedaan penyelesaian kasus rahasia dagang di Indonesia dengan Amerika Serikat? Hasil penelitian ini adalah bahwa dari rumusan Pasal 39 ayat (1) TRIPs dapat kita ketahui bahwa ketentuan yang diatur dalam Pasal 39 TRIPs ini diadakan dengan tujuan untuk menjamin efektivitas pelaksanaan perlindungan atas persaingan usaha tidak sehat, yang diatur dalam Pasal 10bis Paris Convention (1967). Untuk keperluan penjaminan pelaksanaan perlindungan atas persaingan usaha tidak sehat inilah maka para anggota WTO diwajibkan untuk memberikan perlindungan atas informasi yang dirahasiakan tersebut, maupun atas data-data yang diserahkan kepada pemerintah atau agen pemerintah. Lingkup perlindungan Rahasia Dagang menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2000. Sedangkan lingkup perlindungan Rahasia Dagang menurut Uniform Trade Secret Act (UTSA), Economic Espionage Act yang di Amandemen menjadi Defend Trade Secret Act. Kata Kunci: Hak Kekayaan Intelektual, Pelindungan Hukum, Rahasia Dagan
-
Ketentuan Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Pengaturan Rahasia Dagang (Studi Komparatif Antara Indonesia Dengan Amerika Serikat)
2019Co-Authors: Widayati, Rahmasari SolawatulAbstract:Hak Kekayaan Intelektual (HKI) selalu berkembang mengikuti keterbukaan dunia yang dianggap sangat mempengaruhi kemajuan bidang teknologi dan ilmu pengetahuan, keterbukaan dunia tersebut juga memberikan pengaruh terhadap hubungan internasional yang lingkupnya bukan hanya dalam Negara Indonesia dan regional ASEAN. Persaingan merupakan bagian yang tidak terpisahkan dari kehidupan yang dihadapi para pengusaha untuk memperoleh laba, seringkali untuk mencapai tujuan tersebut sering kali terjadi persaingan curang yang dapat menimbulkan konflik antar pengusaha, untuk mencegah hal tersebut maka diperlukan hukum yang akan menentukan rambu-rambu yang harus ditaati secara preventif dan represif bagi mereka yang melakukan persaingan. Lingkup tujuan tersebut termasuk pula tindakan hukum terhadap pengusaha yang melakukan pelanggaran rahasia dagang. Perlindungan terhadap pemilik rahasia dagang tidak harus diatur dalam suatu undang-undang khusus karena hal tersebut dapat diatur melalui undang-undang khusus yang dapat memberikan perlindungan terhadap pemilik rahasia dagang sebagaimana diterapkan dalam negara Amerika Serikat (USA). Perlindungan rahasia dagang di Indonesia diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2000 tentang Rahasia Dagang, dan pengaturan rahasia dagang di Amerika Serikat diatur melalui Uniform Trade Secret Act 1985 yang melindungi hukum rahasia dagang dalah hukum perdata dan Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA) yang memberikan aturan terkait aspek hukum pidana terhadap pelanggaran rahasia dagang lalu Defend Trade Secret Act 2016 (DTSA) mengamandemen EEA untuk memberikan pemulihan hukum di pengadilan federal untuk penyelewengan rahasia dagang. Berdasarkan hal tersebut karya tulis ini mengangkat rumusan masalah: (1) Bagaimana pengaturan perlindungan terkait ruang lingkup dan jenis pelanggaran rahasia dagang menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2000 dengan Undang-Undang Amerika Serikat (USA)? (2) Bagaimana perbedaan penyelesaian kasus rahasia dagang di Indonesia dengan Amerika Serikat? Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif. Bahan hukum primer dalam penelitian ini berupa peraturan-peraturan yang berkaitan dengan perlindungan rahasia dagang yaitu TRIPs,Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2000 tentang Rahasia Dagang,Uniform Trade Secret Act 1985,Economic Espionage Act 1991,Defend Trade Secret Act 2016. Bahan hukum sekunder yaitu bahan-bahan yang memberikan informasi yang berkaitan dengan sumber bahan hukum primer beserta implementasinya, dilakukan dengan melakukan kajian kepustakaan dan penelusuran kepustakaan terkait dengan bahasa penelitian yang berupa buku literatur, jurnal, hasil penulisan ilmiah, penelusuran internet. Bahan hukum tersier yaitu bahan-bahan yang dapat melengkapi bahan hukum primer dan bahan hukum sekunder yaitu berupa kamus, yang terdiri dari kamus bahasa Indonesia, kamus hukum, dan berbagai kamus lainnya yang dibutuhkan. Dari hasil penelitian dengan metode diatas, Pengaturan rahasia dagang di Indonesia yang diatur melalui Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2000 tentang Rahasia Dagang tidak mengatur tentang tindak pidana pencurian spionase ekonomi,di Amerika Serikat (USA) mempunyai undang-undang yang terkait dengan spionase ekonomi yaitu EEA yang di amandemen menjadi (DTSA), Undang-Undang tersebut mengatur tentang pencurian atau penyelewengan rahasia dagang yang berlaku secara ekstrateritorial. Sedangkan untuk pengaturan rahasia dagang secara luas terdapat dalam UTSA yang menjelaskan secara rinci terkait rahasia dagang secara keseluruhan. Pengaturan subyek hukum terkait pemegang rahasia dagang dalam UTSA dijelaskan secara jelas dalam Section 1(3) terkait siapa orang yang berhak atas informasi rahasia tersebut, sedangkan dalam UURD tidak terdapat pengaturan tentang subyek hukum pemegang rahasia dagang,di Indonesia pemegang rahasia dagang adalah seseorang yang menemukan atau merancang informasi tersebut. Penyelesaian sengketa terkait rahasia dagang yaitu melalui mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa dapat dilakukan dengan upaya gugatan ganti rugi, pencabutan hak, dan arbitrase. Penyelesaian sengketa rahasia dagang di Amerika Serikat dapat dilakukan pengajuan putusan sementara dan gugatan ganti rugi
Halligan R. Mark - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Revisited 2015: Protection of U.S. Trade Secret Assets: Critical Amendments to the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, 14 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 476 (2015)
2015Co-Authors: Halligan R. MarkAbstract:In order to protect the national and Economic interests of the United States, the Economic Espionage Act was enActed in 1996. Although intended to prevent and deter trade secret theft, the EEA is limited to criminal prosecutions. Critical amendments to the EEA are required to create a civil cause of Action in the new information-based economy and the international marketplace. In 2008, the author recommended two critical amendments to the Economic Espionage Act that have been vetted and have been the subject of legislative proposals for the past 7 years. The author now revisits developments since 2008 and underscores the urgency and the compelling national and Economic interests in amending the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 in the 114th Congress
-
Protection of U.S. Trade Secret Assets: Critical Amendments to the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, 7 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 656 (2008)
2008Co-Authors: Halligan R. MarkAbstract:In order to protect the Economic interests of the United States, the Economic Espionage Act was enActed in 1996. Although intended to prevent and deter trade secret theft, the EEA is limited to criminal prosecutions. Critical amendments to the EEA are required to create a civil cause of Action in the new information-based economy and the international marketplace. The following proposed amendments to the EEA provide a federal civil cause of Action, allowing companies to protect trade secret assets and to ensure the continued growth and protection of trade secret assets in the international marketplace
Chris Carr - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Intellectual Capital, Competitive Intelligence and the Economic Espionage Act
2004Co-Authors: Chris Carr, G. Scott Erickson, Helen N. RothbergAbstract:This article analyses the growth and prActice of intellectual capital and competitive intelligence, two industry prActices that have received increasing attention over the last decade. Related in their conceptual structure, the two fields also interAct in terms of the benefits and costs of leveraging organisational knowledge in the face of competitive intelligence efforts. This interAction poses the key question of how widely intellectual capital should be dispersed. In the USA, at least, the Economic Espionage Act provides some guidance. After a discussion of the key provisions of the Act, the paper passes to prActical suggestions for using intellectual capital resources as widely as possible while still protecting the firm from competitive intelligence threats. Compliance standards, risk assessment and management, collaborator certification and signalling are all considered in turn.
-
The Economic Espionage Act: Bear Trap or Mousetrap?
2002Co-Authors: Chris Carr, Jack K. Morton, Jerry L. FurnissAbstract:Since its passage in 1996, the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) has been the subject of intense debate and discussion. Criminal penalties for both individuals and corporations violating the Act are severe. Expectations of protection against foreign and domestic trade secret misappropriation have also been raised. This article does the following: First, it reviews some of the reasons behind the increase in trade secret misappropriation Activities in recent years. Next, it provides an overview of Congress' response to the problem of trade secret theft - the passage of the EEA. The authors also obtained the case docket sheets and indictments in each of the cases filed by the government under the Act as of the date of the publication of this article; those cases are summarized in the article; and it then discusses the lessons to be gleaned from these cases. Thus, this piece will be of interest and value to a wide audience - law professors, judges, government prosecutors and policy makers, white-collar criminal defense attorneys, in-house attorneys, risk managers, and a variety of businesses. Finally, the article discusses the steps that businesses should take in light of these case developments to develop and implement an effective Trade Secret Compliance Plan so they can seek the protection of the Act when necessary, as well as avoid becoming a criminal defendant under the Act.
-
The Revictimization of Companies by the Stock Market Who Report Trade Secret Theft Under the Economic Espionage Act
2002Co-Authors: Chris Carr, Larry R. GormanAbstract:In 1996 Congress passed the Economic Espionage Act (EEA). One of the concerns surrounding the passage of the EEA was that publicly traded companies would be hesitant to report trade secret theft to the government for fear that doing so would adversely impAct their stock prices. This article investigates whether that concern has merit. Using event study methodology, we found that the market does, in fAct, negatively reAct to the reporting of trade secret theft under the EEA. Stated differently, these companies are "revictimized" by going public with their loss. Further, we found a strong statistical link between the value of the trade secret and subsequent decreases in stock value (i.e., the higher the value of the trade secret the greater the decrease in stock price). These findings have important implications regarding the efficacy of the EEA and future amendments. They also have important implications for corporate legal counsel, CEOs, managers, and shareholders.
Nicola Searle - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Criminalization of the Theft of Trade Secrets:An Analysis of the Economic Espionage Act
2012Co-Authors: Nicola SearleAbstract:This paper presents a law and Economics assessment of how the elevation of the theft of trade secrets from civil malfeasance to a felony affects the incentives for both firms and potential thieves. The paper begins with theoretical analysis of the EEA and concludes with an empirical assessment of prosecutions under the EEA. In comparison to penalties used in civil cases, the new incentive of a criminal deterrent to trade secret theft introduces severe consequences, such as incarceration as a form of punishment.4 Additionally, the criminalization of trade secrets plays into the property versus liability debate. When confronted with a theft of trade secrets, a firm must decide whether to seek legal recourse and, if so, whether recourse should be criminal and/or civil. However, the financial damages assessed in EEA criminal cases can be compared to civil cases, and are found to be lower.
-
Firm size and trade secret intensity: evidence from the Economic Espionage Act
2012Co-Authors: Nicola Searle, Gavin C. ReidAbstract:This paper considers trade secrecy as an appropriation mechanism in the context ofb the US Economic Espionage Act (EEA) 1996. We examine the relation between trade secret intensity and firm size, using a cross section of 95 court cases. The paper builds on extant work in three respects. First, we create a unique body of evidence, using EEA prosecutions from 1996 to 2008. Second, we use an econometric approach to measurement, estimation and hypothesis testing. This allows us comprehensively to test the robustness of findings. Third, we focus on objectively measured valuations, instead of the subjective, self-reported values used elsewhere. We find a stable, robust value for the elasticity of trade secret intensity with respect to firm size, which indicates that a 10% reduction in firm size leads to a 7% increase in trade secret intensity. We find that this result is not sensitive to industrial sector, sample trimming, or functional form.
-
The Economics of trade secrets : evidence from the Economic Espionage Act
2010Co-Authors: Nicola SearleAbstract:This thesis reports on the Economic analysis of trade secrets via data collected from prosecutions under the U.S. Economic Espionage Act (EEA.) Ratified in 1996, the EEA increases protection for trade secrets by criminalizing the theft of trade secrets. The empirical basis of the thesis is a unique database constructed using EEA prosecutions from 1996 to 2008. A critical and empirical analysis of these cases provides insight into the use of trade secrets. The increase in the criminal culpability of trade secret theft has important impActs on the use of trade secrets and the incentives for would-be thieves. A statistical analysis of the EEA data suggest that trade secrets are used primarily in manufActuring and construction. A cluster analysis suggests three broad categories of EEA cases based on the type of trade secret and the sector of the owner. A series of illustrative case studies demonstrates these clusters. A critical analysis of the damages valuations methods in trade secrets cases demonstrates the highly variable estimates of trade secrets. Given the criminal context of EEA cases, these valuation methods play an important role in sentencing and affect the incentives of the owners of trade secrets. The analysis of the lognormal distribution of the observed values is furthered by a statistical analysis of the EEA valuations, which suggests that the methods can result in very different estimates for the same trade secret. A regression analysis examines the determinants of trade secret intensity at the firm level. This econometric analysis suggests that trade secret intensity is negatively related to firm size. Collectively, this thesis presents an empirical analysis of trade secrets.
Helen N. Rothberg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Intellectual Capital, Competitive Intelligence and the Economic Espionage Act
2004Co-Authors: Chris Carr, G. Scott Erickson, Helen N. RothbergAbstract:This article analyses the growth and prActice of intellectual capital and competitive intelligence, two industry prActices that have received increasing attention over the last decade. Related in their conceptual structure, the two fields also interAct in terms of the benefits and costs of leveraging organisational knowledge in the face of competitive intelligence efforts. This interAction poses the key question of how widely intellectual capital should be dispersed. In the USA, at least, the Economic Espionage Act provides some guidance. After a discussion of the key provisions of the Act, the paper passes to prActical suggestions for using intellectual capital resources as widely as possible while still protecting the firm from competitive intelligence threats. Compliance standards, risk assessment and management, collaborator certification and signalling are all considered in turn.
