Texas State theft crime law - civil remedies for trade secret criminal theft

In 1989 the Texas State Theft Remedy Act (TTLA) was enacted. to see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ง 134.001. TTLA was introduced because theft was criminalized based on criminal law, but there was no civil liability provision on theft. Committee report of SB 269 p.2. Cooper pair. Sony Music Entertainment Co., Ltd., 2002 US Dist. Lexis 3832, * 16 (SD Tex. February 22, 2002) ("[T] He did not give the Texas state criminal law private rights. " Aguilar v. Chastain, 923 SW 2 d 740, 745 (Tex.App.Tyler 1996) (rejected write) ("[T] He states that the Penal Code does not create the cause of private actions and that the victim "does not have a position to participate as a party in a criminal proceeding"). This is because the trade secret is generally the nature of property right. The only way the parties could implement these rights before the passage of TTLA was by tort or contract principle. ( IBP, Inc. v. Klumpe Therefore, the legislature stipulated to provide statistical civil liability to illegally dispose of trade secrets of intellectual property among other offsets. In order to support the passing of the act, McFarland State Councilor at the committee said, "Statutory civil liability [will] Admit the monetary recovery for criminals by victims and complement criminal sanctions " Id.

Under TTLA, "Those who committed theft are responsible for the damage caused by theft Tex.Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134.003 (a). In addition," Child domination and disciplinary action The parent or other person who is obliged to take responsibility for the theft that the child committed. Id . It is published in §134.003 (b). Theft based on TTLA is defined as "a service that illegally obtains illegally possessed property or illegally obtains it" in Texas State Criminal Code Section 31.1-7, paragraph 11-14. Id. In sections 31.03, 31.04, 31.05, 31.06, 31.07, 31.11, 31.02, 31.13 or 31.14 of the Penal Code of § 134.002 (2), these sections , Defines various actions to measure theft, including trade secret theft in Section 31.05.

Under Article 31.05 (a) of the Texas State Criminal Code, trade secrets are "all or part of worthworthy scientific or technical information, design, process, procedures, formalities, or improvements" and possess People will be available to people other than the owner's choice to access for a limited purpose " Id. It is published in § 31.05 (a) (4).

"Stolen the trade secret by deliberately (1) stealing trade secrets, (2) making copies of articles representing trade secrets, (3) telling trade secrets, and communicating trade secrets I am guilty. Id. It is published in § 31.05 (b). In order for the defendant to be held responsible under § 31.05, he must take a trade secret "without the owner's effective consent". Id. This is defined in § 31.01 (3) as follows.

"Effective consent" includes the consent of those who are legally allowed to act by the owner. In the following cases, consent is not valid.

(A) It is triggered by deception or extortion.

(B) what an actor gave by a person who knows that the act of the owner is not legally authorized;

(C) To be given by those who are known to be unable to do reasonable real estate disposition by actors for mentally ill or faulty or discomfort, for young people.

(D) Given only to detect criminal fees. Egypt

(E) For the elderly, it is known that the ability of actors to make informed reasonable decisions about reasonable disposal of assets is declining.

I. Advantages of the Texas State Theft Law

The ability to pursue complaints under TTLA has some distinct advantages over traditional common law theory of both traditional plagiarism covered in other sections of the Texas Penal Code and trade secret misappropriation .

A. Traditional theft law

Section 31.03 (a), which deals with more conventional theft, was intended to expel the principle (owner) of the commodities by perpetrators (thieves). Id . § 31.03 (a) ("If an act illegally attempts to deprive the owner's right, the person commits a crime"). Falcone v. Texas , 682 SW 2 d 418, 420 (Tex. App. 1st Dist. Houston 1984). Texas courts routinely demand prosecution to prove this factor. In fact, the Court of Appeals for District 1 of Houston, pursuant to ง 31.03,

Related Photos