L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
{"title":"44. 信息是否能够得到保护?","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter looks at the type of information that is capable of being protected by the action for breach of confidence. More specifically, it examines four limitations placed on the type of information that may be protected under the action: where the information is trivial, immoral, vague, or in the public domain. It also considers the notion of ‘relative secrecy’ around which the breach of confidence, along with encrypted information and the so-called ‘springboard’ doctrine.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"44. Is the information capable of being protected?\",\"authors\":\"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0044\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter looks at the type of information that is capable of being protected by the action for breach of confidence. More specifically, it examines four limitations placed on the type of information that may be protected under the action: where the information is trivial, immoral, vague, or in the public domain. It also considers the notion of ‘relative secrecy’ around which the breach of confidence, along with encrypted information and the so-called ‘springboard’ doctrine.\",\"PeriodicalId\":88929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Marquette intellectual property law review\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Marquette intellectual property law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0044\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Marquette intellectual property law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
44. Is the information capable of being protected?
This chapter looks at the type of information that is capable of being protected by the action for breach of confidence. More specifically, it examines four limitations placed on the type of information that may be protected under the action: where the information is trivial, immoral, vague, or in the public domain. It also considers the notion of ‘relative secrecy’ around which the breach of confidence, along with encrypted information and the so-called ‘springboard’ doctrine.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
