Subscription pricing
passage 1
P1
Often when a highly skilled and experienced employee leaves one company to work for another, there is the potential for a transfer of sensitive information between competitors. ███ █████ ██████████ ██ ████ █████ ██████ ███████████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██████████████ ███████████ ████ ███ █████ █████████████ ███ █████ ██ ███████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██████████ ███ ██ ████ ████ ███ ██ █████ ██████████ ███
Problem ·
When employees change companies, they might take trade secrets with them
One principle - companies have right to their own intellectual property. Another principle - people can seek other employment and freely use their own abilities. These appear irreconcilable.
Courts' solution ·
Allow employees to change companies, but order employees not to disclose former employer's secrets
One critique ·
Court's solution doesn't protect employees' rights
Author's critique ·
Court's solution doesn't protect trade secrets
The transition "but it is also doubtful..." tells us that the author will focus on this critique. She won't focus on the other one.
P2
██ ██ █████████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ██ █████ █████████ ████ ███ ███ ████████ ████ ██████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ███ ███████████ ███████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ █████ █████ ████████████ █████████ █████████████ ██████ ███ ████ ███████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ███ ████████████ ██ ███████ ██ █████████ █████████ ██████ ██████████ ██████████ ███████ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ █████████ ███████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ █████████ █████████
Support for Author's Critique ·
Employees can't separate expertise they gained from prior employment
However, companies might claim that part of that expertise involves intellectual property.
P3
████ ██ ████████ █████ █ ████████ ████ █ ███████████ ███ █████ ███████ ████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ████████████ ████ ██ ████ █████ ███████████ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ██████████████ ███ █████████████████████ ████████ ██ █████ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ██ ██ ███ ████ █████ █████████████ ███ █████ ████ ██ █ █████ ████ ██████████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ████ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ███
Support for Author's Critique ·
Court orders don't stop subsconscious use of trade secrets
Concession ·
Court orders, in theory, prohibit subconcious use of trade secrets ("leakage")
Author's response to concession ·
Hard to enforce prohibition against leakage
There won't be much evidence of subconscious use of secrets (because it's subconscious). And, it's hard to distinguish legitimate skill developed independently by employees from skill acquired through secrets.
Author's main point ·
Court orders prohibiting disclosure of secrets are unlikely to be effective
Passage Style
Critique or debate
Problem-analysis
3.
The author's primary purpose in ███ ███████ ██ ██
a
suggest that injunctions ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ███████ ███ ████ ██████ ████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ███████████
b
suggest that the ███████████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ███ █████ ████████ ████████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ██████████ ████████████ ████████
c
argue that new ███████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ███████ ███████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ██████
d
support the position ████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████████ █████ ███████ ██ ██ ██████ ██████ ██ ██ ███ ██ ██████████ ██████ ██ ███████████
e
argue that injunctions ███ ███ █████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ███████