How Bad Intellectual Property Laws Hurt Classic Video Game Consumers; Forbes, June 25, 2017

Adam Ozimek, Forbes; How Bad Intellectual Property Laws Hurt Classic Video Game Consumers

"The economic purpose of intellectual property is to incentivize the creation of products that would not otherwise be created. These laws can benefit consumers, but the granting of monopoly rights creates a cost as well. In terms of balancing costs and benefits, the current copyright system is -to be frank- absurd. A look at how excessive copyright is harming back video game consumers makes that clear."

Trade secret law: A brief guide for in-house counsel; Inside Counsel, 8/18/16

Ben Berkowitz, Briggs Matheson, Inside Counsel; Trade secret law: A brief guide for in-house counsel:

"What information does trade secret law protect?

Forty-seven states have adopted some form of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”), with New York, Massachusetts, and North Carolina as the only exceptions. Under the UTSA, there is a two-prong test for determining whether information may be subject to trade secret protection. First, trade secret information must be information that “derive[s] independent economic value” from not being publicly known (See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(d)). That is, the information is valuable because it is a secret that others, including competitors, do not possess. Second, the information must be “the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” (Id.) “The determination of whether ‘reasonable efforts’ have been taken is quintessentially fact-specific,” and “‘depends on a balancing of costs and benefits that will vary from case to case.’” (Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. v. DEV Industries, Inc.) “Reasonable efforts” may include adopting confidentiality policies, entering into non-disclosure agreements, and establishing digital and physical security infrastructure. (Religious Tech. Ctr. Netcom On-Line Commc’n Servs.)"