Obligation of confidence

Employees are in a rather special position. The case of Thomas Marshall referred to above shows that a contract of employment may contain both express and implied obligations to respect the confidentiality of information acquired by an employee in the course of his employment. While the employee continues to be employed by the employer, the obligation of confidence is quite strict. But what happens after that contract comes to an end, for example when the employee goes to work for someone else, or sets up in business on his or her own account Can he or she use all or any of the information learned in the course of the previous employment ... 

The importance of the case also lies in the general discirssion of the circirmstances in which an equitable obligation of confidence will be imposed. As we saw earlier, Mr Justice Megarty said that where information of cotmnercial or industrial value is given on a business-like basis or with a common object in mind, such as a joint venture or the manufacture of articles by one party for another, the recipient is under a heavy burden if he seeks to refute the contention that he is botmd by an obligation to respect confidentiality. In the absence of a contract between the parties, this obligation will be equitable. 

A person who wishes to make a disclosiue of confidential information can rely on the equitable obligation of confidence. But in practice, it is better to protect the information by express contract, as was discussed above, if only for the reasons which we stated earlier, namely that the recipient of the information is given an express warning about confidentiality, and this emphasizes to a much greater extent the serious intent of the discloser to enforce confidentiality. 

We have diseussed the position of one who receives confidential information directly from the person who is entitled to that information, e g. an employee who, in the course of employment, is told the employer s trade secrets. Here generally the employee is bormd to respect the confidentiality of that informatioa But what happens if the employee passes the secret to another, e.g. to a rival concern The rival is not in a contractual relationship to the employer and hence there can be no contractual obligation to respect confidentiality, but here again Equity may step in and hold that the rival is rmder an equitable obligation to respect confidentiality, particularly if the rival has what is known as rmclean hands , that is has been less than honourable in his or her dealings this phrase covers a wide spectrum of abuse. Furthermore, if the rival had deliberately induced the employee to breach an obligation of confidence to the employer, the rival could also be liable in tort for inducing a breach of contract. 

Mere ideas which are not recorded, but perliaps only remembered by persons who heard them being expressed, are not protected by copyright. This can have important practical implications. If an idea is not embodied in a patented invention, and is not recorded for the purposes of copyright law, the only way in which it can be protected from exploitation by others is as confidential information. But if it was not disclosed in circumstances which impose an obligation of confidence, then it will not be protected by intellectual property laws. 

The employer however has the obligation of selecting any monitoring method which meets the accuracy and precision requirements of the standard under his unique field conditions. The standard requires that the method of monitoring must have an accuracy, to a 95 percent confidence level, of not less than plus or minus 25 percent for the select PEL. 

Appendix D lists methods of sampling and analysis which have been tested by NIOSH and OSHA for use with acrylonitrile. NIOSH and OSHA have validated modifications of NIOSH Method S-156 (See Appendix D) under laboratory conditions for concentrations below 1 ppm. The employer has the obligation of selecting a monitoring method which meets the accuracy and precision requirements of the standard under his unique field conditions. The standard requires that methods of monitoring must be accurate, to a 95-percent confidence level, to 35-percent for concentrations of AN at or above 2 ppm, and to 50-percent for concentrations below 2 ppm. In addition to the methods described in Appendix D, there... 

The trade associations that are members of lATF perform an assurance function and have set up a panel to administer certification activities in their country. This involves witness audits of certification bodies to verify that they are adhering to the lATF agreement. They will monitor the scheme on behalf of the vehicle manufacturers in ensuring that certificates are only awarded to organizations that are 100% compliant with the requirements. These activities should provide added confidence that the certification bodies are fulfilling their obligations. 

In this Section we aim to make the CRM user aware of the uncertainty budgets that need to be considered with the use of CRMs. Certified values in CRMs are the property values (mass fraction, concentration, or amount of substance) and their uncertainty, the uncertainty being in many instances a specified confidence interval for the certified property. As we discussed before, this uncertainty value is not always a complete uncertainty budget for an analytical process from sampling to production of data. But even when disregarding the subtle differences in the certificates, the way a CRM is used has serious consequences on the uncertainty budget that has to be applied to a user s result. This is summarized in Table 7.2. These uses may affect accuracy claims as well as traceability claims. It is the user s obligation to establish com-... 

Once your problem takes on a 13 C dimension, you are of course, obligated to examine the 13 C data with the same level of dispassionate scrutiny that you apply to the proton data. Chemical shifts cannot be fudged and unexpected peaks cannot be glossed over. You have to be able to account for everything you see to have confidence in your product. 

The subject of a trade secret must be secret, and must not be of public knowledge or of a general knowledge in the trade or business. B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Wohlgemuth, supra, 117 Ohio App., at 499. National Tube Co. v. Eastern Tube Co., 3 Ohio C.C.R. (n.s.) 459, 462 (Cir. Ct. 1902), aff d, 69 Ohio St. 560, 70 N.E. 1127 (1903). This necessary element of secrecy is not lost, however, if the holder of the trade secret reveals the trade secret to another in confidence, and under an implied obligation not to use or disclose it. Cincinnati Bell Foundry Co. v. Dodds, 10 Ohio Dec. Rep. 154, 156, 19 Weekly L. Bull. 84 (Super. Ct. 1887). These other may include those of the holder s employes [sic] to whom it is necessary to confide it, in order to apply it to the uses for which it is intended. National Tube Co. v. Eastern Tube Co., supra. Often the recipient of confidential knowledge of the subject of a trade secret is a licensee of its holder. See Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653 (1969). 

---