Yesterday, we looked at a recent federal-court decision to determine whether LinkedIn connections are considered trade secrets. Today, after the jump, we look at whether your business has any protectible interest in a LinkedIn account that you create and maintain for your employees.
Over the past several weeks, you probably read about this case involving a company suing one of its former employees whom it alleges misappropriated a Twitter account and, along with it, 17,000 Twitter followers that the company believes it owns. A video about the case follows below:
A fight over LinkedIn connections.
Raise your hand if your state has adopted a Uniform Trade Secrets Act — a law that affords companies an additional layer of protection by providing for civil remedies in cases of trade-secret theft by employees and others.
Not so fast, New Jersey.
Well, all that may be about to change. Details after the jump…
* * *
In a matter of minutes, or even seconds, a single tweet may reach thousands or, possibly, millions of people. Now, just imagine if that tweet contained proprietary information. (You know, like if Lady Gaga tweeted the code to Microsoft Windows 7 to her millions of followers). Ummm…work with me here…
But, even in the days before Twitter, publishing content on a blog or a message board meant putting information out in the public domain for anyone — including a competitor — to view. What if that information was supposed to be confidential? Does a trade secret lose its legal trade-secret status if it is published on the internet? Find out the answer after the jump…
I was reading a blog post from Jennifer L. Gokenbach at the Colorado Employer’s Law Blog, discussing how, as of yesterday, Colorado deems continuation of at-will employment to be sufficient consideration to support a non-competition agreement. In non-lawyer speak, that means that if an employee signs an agreement not-to-compete in Colorado after the employee starts working, on the condition that if the employee does not sign the agreement then the employee will be fired, the employer may later enforce that agreement.
That’s now the law in Colorado. Is that also the law in PA, NJ, and DE?
Delaware: Yes. Research & Trading Corp. v. Powell, 468 A.2d 1301, 1305 (Del.Ch.1983).
New Jersey: Yes. Hogan v. Bergen Brunswiq Corporation, 153 N.J.Super. 37, 378 A.2d 1164 (App.Div. 1977).
Pennsylvania: No. An agreement not to compete with a former employer must be supported by new consideration; i.e., a change in the conditions of employment (e.g., a raise, promotion, or other financial benefit). Maintenance Specialties, Inc. v. Gottus, 455 Pa. 327, 314 A.2d 279, 280 (Pa. 1974).
In an unpublished opinion, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied a Pennsylvania company’s attempt to enjoin a former employee, who had entered into several restrictive covenants with the company, to compete directly against the company and solicit its customers.
What did this employer do wrong and how can you learn from its mistakes?
After the jump…
This story that I wrote with my Dilworth Paxson LLP colleague, David Laigaie, the Chair of Dilworth’s Corporate Investigation/White Collar Group, recently appeared in The Legal Intelligencer. If you operate a business in Pennsylvania and you have trade secrets, employees with non-solicitation agreements, or non-competition agreements, then take a few minutes and read this article. You’ll be glad you did.
If you are reading this and you are a New Jersey employer, then the answer is yes. But only under certain circumstances. I’ll lay out the test for you after the jump.
The Employer Handbook Blog