Doctrine of Inevitable Disclosures
I agree with the provisions stated in the principles of inevitable disclosures that allows a trade secret holder not to hire a former employee working for a close competitor. Although the secret’s bearer cannot offer the threats behind the misuse of trade secrets, a former employee should not be allowed to work for a close competitor. These points seek to provide arguments for the inevitable disclosure doctrine.
- Firstly, this assists in the protection of the company’s confidential and sensitive information. Based on this doctrine, employees can reveal the confidential information to the competitors. This is based on the non-compete agreement that allows states to restrain the former employees. However, if there are no competitions between the companies, the litigation does not apply.
- In the case of hiring a competitor’s executive, it violates the provisions of the doctrine due to the intent of the executives to utilize the confidential information. The executives are required to record their intentions and interests in order to prove their credibility and responsibilities on the basis of the doctrine.
- Litigation arguments provide that pursing inevitable doctrine highlight the need to enhance transparency on former employees and executives. This assists to show the inevitability of revealing private information in a manner that could harm employees. However, the companies should understand the agreements between employees and the companies. Therefore, the doctrine requires employees to acknowledge that trade secrets and private information can be stored in their memories and it is difficult to erase such information. This admission helps in proving the need to place this legal doctrine in workplaces.