Learning Team Reflection Essay

With the advancement of technology and the rise in Internet usage amongst idiosyncratic companies, businesses, and organizations, they are faced with new challenges in protecting their brand, trademark, and image from competitors (Clark, 2007). This has caused m whatsoever another(prenominal) businesses to take action in the protection of intellection property rights or IPR. For the week three assignment, the members of team A choose to discuss the wooing in which atomic number 61 Technologies wins intellectual property constabularysuit. This paper would highlight exposit of the case.Doug Sayer, the owner of phase modulation Technologies, claimed that two of his former employees stole private development for trade secret infringement and future sabotage. The former men were members of overhaul management at Premier Technologies. Orr and Schutte, the two men, downloaded the organizations insider teaching to external nasty drivers, and shortly after that, left the organiza tion to work for the competitor.According to well-grounded information Institute, Trade Secret is defined as the information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that derives independent economic economic value or potential, from not be generally known to or readily ascertainable through enamour means by other persons who might obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. The issue is that Orr and Schutte had an intentional plan to use the trading operations of Premier Technologies against them to make the organization fall into the red and sale for a price less than what the business is worth.In Bannock County, Idahos Sixth juridic District in December 2011 ruled in favor of Premier Technologies in the lawsuit Premier Technologies v. Chadd Orr, Jeff Schutte and Petersen, Inc. Doug Sayer, also Premier Technologys president and chief operating officer, argued that Chadd Orr and Jeff Schutte was conspiring with Peterson. T his made Orr and Schutte breach their fiducial duties that they owed to Premier Technology while they were high level managers at Premier Technologies. The dialog box unanimously voted in favor of Premier Technologies and agreed that both Orr and Schutte violated the Idaho Trade Secret Act, and that they both had a fiduciary relationship withPremier. The jury also ruled in favor of Premier, implicating Petersen Inc. had, in fact, conspired with Orr and Schutte in breaching of their fiduciary responsibility to Premier Technologies. The ruling awarded a little over two million dollars to Premier Technologies. A $905,250 judgment was set against Schutte, while a $603,500 judgment against Orr was set for breaching their fiduciary duties. Punitive restitution were awarded as such $172,000 against Schutte and $120,000 against Orr.The analysis of the case appears to be quite simple in nature. The mashs decision ultimately stems from Orr and Schuttes fiduciary responsibilities that th ey owed to Premier during their art with the beau monde. The copy of protected data was not in itself the infraction, notwithstanding when that information was subsequently provided to a direct competitor, an illegal activity had taken perplex and the two men were liable for their actions. The state laws of Idaho clearly protected Premier, and any business entity, from this form of intellectual property theft. It also awards that company capital to satisfy the damages that were caused by these actions, and because of the intentional nature of the act, punitive damages were made possible as well.As there are oft no formal means to protect the trade secrets that a company might have in their processes, litigation is sometimes the best survival and, in this case, it certainly provided Premier with the chance to recoup their losses. As a future employee hiring procedure, it might be pertinent for Sayer to include an employee clause that gives up their right to work for a direct c ompetitor in the future, as some highly competitive organizations do (Idaho State Journal).Through many another(prenominal) trials and errors, laws have come to pass to protect each business from employees who manage to harm them. Orr and Schutte not only jeopardized Premier Technologys operation, but they also jeopardized their integrity. Once they decided to work with a competitor, they stole rich information from the Plaintiff in order to make the business fail. Their actions morose into a lawsuit that determined they breached their contract with Premier Technologies. Due to this infringement, both parties and competitor were liable for all damages incurred to Premier Technologies. For Premier Technologies to foil this from happening again, they shoulddetermine if a clause is needed to prevent employees from on the job(p) with the competitor.ReferenceClark, D. (2007). EBusiness and Intellectual Property. IBB Solicitors. Retrieved from http//www.ibblaw.co.uk/downloads/brochu res/2010-05-27-15-05-41-ebusiness_and_intellectual_property.pdfLegal Information Institute, August 2010, Trade Secret. Cornell University law school.http//www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trade_secret