| SUMMARY SERVICES |
|
|
|
|
CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT (The case name, civil number and all names have been
changed) Transcript of Proceedings BARRY CADE Testifying on January 15, 2000 United States vs. FabCo, Inc., John Doe and Jane Doe Case No: CR-00-12345 RMW |
|
|
101 |
What steps does TechCo take to protect the confidentiality of its proprietary information? Smith: Objection as to time. Starting in January of 1990. |
|
102 |
All employees first sign a nondisclosure agreement. Guards sign visitors in, have them sign a nondisclosure agreement, and escort them while they are in the building. TechCo conducts continuous training on security. Document control was in transition from access controlled by individuals, to limited access to electronic documents. |
|
103 |
On all purchase agreements, there are one or two paragraphs that spell out the nondisclosure agreements, paragraphs 10 and 15 Referring to Government’s exhibit 20-1 |
|
104 |
Purchase agreements hadn’t been changed since 1990. Exhibit 20-2, purchase order from February 1990. (recites paragraphs 14 and 17.) |
|
105 |
That same language is in effect today. There is “standard boiler plate” on every drawing, with TechCo’s logo. |
|
106 |
The “no reproduce” blurb appears on every TechCo drawing. TechCo doesn’t manufacture the individual components. We provide the drawings out for quote. |
|
107 |
Supplier has to have access to the drawing and all specifications relating to it. The drawings are not provided to customers. The exception is if a problem comes up and it takes both TechCo and the customer to figure it out. |
|
108 |
But in that case the customer signs a nondisclosure agreement. |
|
109 |
An off the shelf part is a component that already exists, usually a screw or an O ring. Build to print parts can only be used in TechCo machines. |
|
110 |
It’s expensive to design a part, so if possible, TechCo uses an OEM part. |
|
111 |
There was a continuing program to remind employees on the procedures to protect company assets. Witness believed there were no deficiencies. |
|
112 |
Would he tell employees in his security role that, if trade secret information isn’t kept secret, it is no longer protected? Smith: Objection, calling for a legal conclusion. Court: Believes the question is proper as to what witness taught. Not witness’ understanding of trade secret law |
|
1132 |
Believes you simply have to take reasonable steps to protect the information. The law and security departments didn’t work together. Shows witness 11-D, “personnel manual” |
|
1133 |
“protection of trade secrets” This was written in 1980, it’s an old document Didn’t the document say that orientation to new employees would say that any disclosure, intended or unintended, could cause information to lose its proprietary character? Smith: Objection, that
isn’t the law. Court: Question is proper
as to what witness taught. |
| SUMMARY SERVICES |