Maureen, who frequently develops gadgets, had an idea for a machine that could feed her animals (cats, dogs, rabbits, and fish) while she was away on vacation for a week. She was very sure of the idea and began discussions with a manufacturer. Unfortunately, after it was concluded that it could make the machine, the parties could not agree on proper compensation and they broke off negotiations. Shortly afterwards, this manufacturer, Easylife Ltd., began to manufacture "the animal feeder" based on Maureen's idea. On these facts, which of the following is true?
◦ The manufacturer could not be sued for misuse of a trade secret because it had not signed any document in which it acknowledged it had understood the information was confidential and in which it promised not to use the information to Maureen's detriment.
◦ Maureen has no action against the manufacturer because she had not patented her invention.
◦ The manufacturer could not be sued for misuse of a trade secret because it was not Maureen's employee and thus was not in a position of trust and could use the information for its own benefit.
◦ The manufacturer could not be sued for misuse of a trade secret because Maureen only shared her idea and ideas cannot be protected by trade secret law.
◦ Maureen could not sue the manufacturer for infringement of copyright but could sue for misuse of a trade secret if she can show that it was apparent in the circumstances that the manufacturer was being trusted with confidential information.
Animals myths dispelled
American women operating machine lathes in a munitions factory.
A typical two-line cleaning machine hookup, showing an extension hose that can be used to squirt a ...
Pathway for synthesis of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in plants and animals
ECG machine.
General mechanism of egg formation in animals