Ms

The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 makes it a federal crime to steal another's trade secrets. In this era of information technology the value of intellectual property has been fully realized. This makes it increasingly important to protect intellectual property and provide a legal framework to bring those that illegally access and use that information to justice.

This paper will address a scenario where unscrupulous practices are used to gain access to intellectual property, discuss surrounding and resulting circumstances that occur, and the result of improperly using that information. Bug, Inc is a company based in Any State, U.S.A. that designs, manufactures, and sells, electronic recording devices. The second company, Wiretap Inc., is a relatively new company trying to compete with Bug, Inc. Wiretap, Inc. sent Steve, a Wiretap employee to Bug, Inc. to get a job and the story unfolds. This paper will explore the civil liabilities, tort liabilities, and other possible litigation at each stage.

Steve, our Wiretap, Inc. employee gets a job working in research and development at Bug, Inc. He forwarded an e-mail he illegally intercepted using which contained information obtained about the Bug, Inc. product lines. Obviously Bug Inc could not have patented these new product lines but they should have patented the technology to safeguard it from copy of theft.

A patent may be granted for an invention which gives the patent holder a right to prevent others from using the invention without permission from the inventor for a certain period of time usually 20 years from the filing date of a patent application. Exclusive rights to a patent is only applicable in the countries where the patent has been registered as the rights granted under a patent can only be enforced in the territory governed by state that issues the patent. Bug Inc should apply for a patent in the other countries that aid them in manufacturing the electronic devices.

Under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 Steve and WIRETAP, Inc could be charged with criminal economic espionage. The Economic Espionage Act was put in place to "provide legal tools to prosecute those who commit economic espionage by stealing trade secrets" (Employees' guide to security responsibilities, nd). The Economic Espionage act defines trade secrets as all "forums and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing" (Employees' guide to security responsibilities, nd). For an act to be that of an economic espionage the following must be true.

* The owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret, and

* The information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by the public.

There are two provisions in the EEA that make theft or misappropriation of trade secrets a federal criminal offense. The first provision section 1831 is directed at foreign economic espionage and requires that the theft of the trade secret be done to benefit a foreign government any instrument of a foreign government, or foreign agent. The second provision section 1832 makes commercial theft of trade secrets a criminal act regardless of who benefits (Employees' guide to security responsibilities, nd).

When facing a more serious economic espionage the defendant could be convicted for violation of section 1831 and be imprisoned for up to 15 years and fined $500,000 or both (Employees' guide to security responsibilities, nd). Corporation and organization can be fined up to $10 million. If the defendant is charged with violation of section 1832 the defendant can be imprisoned for up to 10 years and fined $500,000 corporations and organization can not be fined more then $5 million dollars for the violation (Employees' guide to security responsibilities, nd).

The EEA provides that the court presiding "shall" order a forfeiture of any proceeds or property gained from the violation, and could possibly order the forfeiture of any property used to commit the violation. The EEA authorizes the government to file civil action seeking injunctive relief, but does not provide for civil forfeiture proceedings (Employees' guide to security responsibilities, 2007). If Steve and WIRETAP, Inc are found guilty violating the EEA they are subject to imprisonment, fines, and forfeiture of any moneys gained by the espionage, as well as forfeit of property where the espionage was set up.

The scenario continues with Walter, the security guard for Bug Inc., learning that Steve works for Wiretap. Walter takes matters into is own hands by detaining Steve for six hours and interrogating him using threats of bodily harm to find out what information was divulged to Wiretap. Steve buckles under the pressure and provides the information being demanded and is then released. There are a few actions that are amiss in this situation and will be discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.

The action of the security guard is false arrest which is a common law tort (Wikipedia, 2007). A security guard company is afforded greater arrest powers than ordinary citizens but they are not unlimited. Anyone that decides to apprehend and arrest someone else "creates a legal responsibility to do it correctly" (McGoey, 2007). Although Walter the security guard has discovered evidence that Steve is committing a "felony or indictable offence" the perpetrator "must make an actual attempt to leave" (Wikipedia, 2007 p 1) before he or she can be detained. This did not occur in this case and is therefore grounds for false arrest.

Secondly the amount of time Steve was detained seems excessive. Some jurisdictions have slower response times of police authorities than others, but six hours is excessive due to the fact illegal interrogation took place. Some questioning is permitted but an interrogation is not allowed. The U.S. Supreme Court requires the reading of a citizen's rights or "Miranda rights" as they are called, "before he or she is interrogated by the police or other government officials" (thefreedictionary.com, 2007). Therefore neither the security guard nor Bug Inc. has the right to interrogate.

The final injustice here for Steve is he was threatened with bodily harm. The security guard has committed an assault, "actual physical contact is unnecessary" (Cheeseman, 2004, p 74) to be considered assault.

E-commerce