Competitive advantage, developing

To summarize, in order to be considered a trade secret, the information (/) must not be generaHy known or readily ascertainable (2) must provide a competitive advantage (J) must have been developed, maintained, or acquired at the trade secret owner s expense and (4) must be the subject of the trade secret owner s intent and efforts to keep it confidential. 

Indirect effects are also very likely, because if the U.S. employed technology to reduce C02 emissions, then the resulting cost reductions would provide a competitive advantage for a while and would then be imitated by foreign competitors. This could energize global emission reductions. One path would be to develop crop strains that could take advantage of C02. 

Some companies are already using substitution as a means of eliminating hazardous chemicals from their businesses, (see Annex I) A variety of reasons exist for why some companies are searching for safer substitutes and these include regulatory drivers (such as the recent Directive on the Restriction of Hazardous Substances), increased public awareness, demands from downstream users or clients, worker protection, liability issues, competitive advantage and company ethics. However, there are also barriers and the development and adoption of safer substitutes is happening only slowly, in a piecemeal fashion and in some sectors not at all. 

Coevolution is defined as reciprocal stepwise adaptations between at least two species (Ehrlich and Raven, 1964). Coevolution without the criterion of reciprocity is indistinguishable from evolution and hence a useless concept (Lindroth, 1988). Consider the following scenario. A plant develops effective antiherbivore defenses. In response, a herbivore counteradapts to circumvent these defenses and is at a competitive advantage over other herbivores. The plant, in turn, responds to this breach of its defenses. In insects, such pairwise reciprocal evolution can take the form of a chemical arms race (Dawkins and Krebs, 1979). Coevolution differs from evolution by being narrower, with fewer participants, perhaps even only two species or two populations. In reality, in most ecosystems, many species prey on many other species. Therefore, we can at best speak of diffuse coevolution, with a number of participants that exert diluted selection pressures. 

Apparently, the potential for reducing this window of vulnerability Is fairly limited. The protein content of developing leaves could conceivably be reduced but this would slow the metabolic processes of growth and reduce the gross photosynthetic rate- Both would result in longer development times, prolonging vulnerability, and be a heavier drain on reserves, consequences which would reduce a tree s competitive advantage. 

We have already mentioned that rapid canopy development Is an Important competitive advantage and minimizes the time during which young leaves are vulnerable to herbivores. 

---