Liang Mong-song (梁孟松), a former senior research and development director at Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) advanced module technology development division, has to leave his job at Samsung Electronics Co immediately, according to a Supreme Court ruling handed down on Monday last week.
The court’s ruling is crucial and unprecedented, in that Liang — who in 2009 resigned from TSMC, where he had worked for 17 years — is not allowed to work for the company’s rival even after the expiration of a non-compete agreement with his former employer. In other words, the Supreme Court has made a ruling that seems to try to draw a line between the nation’s industrial competitiveness and people’s right to work.
The Supreme Court’s ruling was the final verdict in the trade-secret lawsuit, which TSMC filed against Liang in late 2011 after the former executive became Samsung’s System LSI division chief technology officer at its R&D headquarters in Seoul.
Last week’s decision upheld a ruling by the Intellectual Property Court last year that Liang would have to resign from Samsung and could not share trade secrets relating to TSMC’s chip technology or any other information regarding TSMC personnel to the South Korean company in order to protect the Taiwanese firm’s competitiveness.
In recent years, several Taiwanese high-tech companies encountered cases of corporate espionage involving their former executives joining competitors’ firms and sharing important trade secrets. An amendment to the Trade Secrets Act (營業秘密法) in 2013 included criminal liability and increased penalties when applied overseas, as more local companies called for stricter regulations on industrial espionage for fear of negative impacts on national security and technological competitiveness. Since then, the relationship between trade secret protection and job mobility has drawn growing attention from business leaders, trade professionals and intellectual property practitioners.
More importantly, in the case of TSMC versus Liang, the Intellectual Property Court was the first in Taiwan to apply the “inevitable disclosure doctrine” in favor of an employer to take an injunctive relief against its former employee to stop future violations. The Supreme Court’s decision last week firmly supports the Intellectual Property Court’s decision to adopt the legal doctrine.
The underlying rationale of both courts is that they believe Liang’s employment at Samsung would inevitably lead to the disclosure of TSMC trade secrets, be it with good or bad intentions, because he might unavoidably use knowledge or experience he had gained from TSMC at Samsung, despite his non-compete contract that expired in 2011.
At a time when Taiwanese firms, ranging from the flat-panel industry to IC design businesses, face the growing threat of trade secret theft by former executives, some of whom have tried to procure those secrets for competitors, legal claims relating to the inevitable disclosure doctrine are likely to increase in the wake of the favorable court rulings for TSMC, which serves as an alternative to proving actual or threatened trade secret misappropriation while frightening other employees into not defecting.
This issue is certain to raise concerns about the potential implications for the mobility and earnings of trade professionals in the high-tech sector. It is even possible that the doctrine of inevitable disclosure might be rejected in a future court ruling.
Nonetheless, the key point is whether Taiwan’s courts can use whatever means possible to effectively protect important trade secrets of local companies and if businesses can create an environment that prevents valuable employees from leaving. Otherwise, the loss of intellectual property and industrial competitiveness could eventually become a national security crisis.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
Within Taiwan’s education system exists a long-standing and deep-rooted culture of falsification. In the past month, a large number of “ghost signatures” — signatures using the names of deceased people — appeared on recall petitions submitted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) against Democratic Progressive Party legislators Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) and Wu Pei-yi (吳沛憶). An investigation revealed a high degree of overlap between the deceased signatories and the KMT’s membership roster. It also showed that documents had been forged. However, that culture of cheating and fabrication did not just appear out of thin air — it is linked to the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS