Self-study
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
6.
In the passage, the author █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████
a
Injunctions against the ██████████ ██ █████ ███████ █████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██ █████ █████ ██ █ ███████████
Not stated. The author never comments on an employee’s chances of being hired when they are subject to an injunction. Although the author mentions that injunctions can create “suspicion,” this is in connection with the employee’s use of their abilities when in a new job. The “suspicion” doesn’t refer to an employer’s suspicion when they are considering hiring an employee.
b
Measures against the ██████████ ██ █████ ███████ ███ ███████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██ █████████ ███ █████ ████████ ███████████ ██ ███ ████████
Not stated. The author doesn’t make any comments about when measures to stop disclosure of trade secrets are necessary or unnecessary. The passage is about the effectiveness of injunctions, not whether they’re needed.
c
Employees who switch ████ ██ ████ ███ █ ██████████ ███████ ███████████████ ███████ ███ ███ ██ █████ ███
Not stated. The author never states that employees who switch jobs “usually” (as in, more often than not) violate the law. The author does indicate that they might unintentionally violate an injunction, but this doesn’t imply that they “usually” violate the law.
d
Employers are not ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ █████████ ███████████ ████ ███ ██████████
Not stated. The author never comments on what employers can try to do to gain access to trade secrets from new employees.
e
What may seem ████ ████████████ █████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ██ ███████ ██ ███████████ ███████████