The Section of the Code To Be Interpreted:
Code 1.6 – Any employee shall be guilty of misconduct if they give non-public intellectual property belonging to The Company to any other employee or any other person or company that has not previously entered into an enduring non-disclosure agreement with The Company.
Examples of Misconduct Under This Code Section:
- Employee A is a research scientist employed by the company to test a new product as a part of The Company’s patent application for the product. Employee A is bound by an enduring non-disclosure agreement which covers all data about the new product. In the process of testing, Employee A realizes that the new product will be vastly superior to any comparable product on the market, and may therefore be worth a lot of money to competitors. Employee A is accused of some other violation of the code of conduct and is under investigation by The Company. The accusations are not supported by facts, but Employee A still fears a loss of livelihood even though Employee A has never heard of someone being wrongly declared guilty of misconduct. Employee A contacts a competitor and gives them a portion of the product so that they may independently varify Employee A’s claims. The competitor offers a large cash payment in exchange for all of the manufacturing processes and historical data for the product. Employee A accesses The Company records and downloads the data, then hands it over to the competitor and quits without notice. Later, the competitor unveils its version of the new product complete with a fabricated development history that demonstrates that they developed the product first. Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 1.6 as well as other forms of misconduct, but may never be punishable under this code. This example instead demonstrates that additional security measures beyond non-disclosure agreements and codes of conduct should be implemented to physically obstruct the removal of certain pieces of company property and data from the facilities of The Company.
- Employee A is bound by an enduring non-disclosure agreement and Employee B is not, but Employee A is unaware of that fact. Employee A needs some help to complete some portion of their work and gives Employee B access to intellectual property belonging to The Company so that Employee B may help. Employee B determines that Employee B had agreed to do something that Employee B couldn’t actually do, but doesn’t want to disappoint Employee A. Employee B sends the intellectual property to an expert acquaintance that doesn’t work for The Company for further aid. Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 1.6 for sharing the intellectual property with Employee B without determining whether or not Employee B had entered into a non-disclosure agreement.
- Employee A is bound by an enduring non-disclosure agreement and Employee B is not. Employee B determines that they can gain a productivity advantage over coworkers if they have access to intellectual property belonging to The Company. Employee B explains this to Employee A and explains that handing over the intellectual property will make Employee A look good, and Employee A agrees. Employee B stores the data on several devices which do not meet The Company’s security standards. Employee B uses the data to gain a productivity advantage and receives a promotion and enters into a non-disclosure agreement with The Company upon the promotion. Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 1.6 because Employee B was not bound by a non-disclosure agreement from the time at which they received the data until the promotion.
Examples That Are Not Misconduct Under This Code Section:
- Employee A is a research scientist employed by the company to test a new product as a part of The Company’s patent application for the product. Employee A is bound by an enduring non-disclosure agreement which covers all data about the new product. In the process of testing, Employee A realizes that the new product will be vastly superior to any comparable product on the market, and may therefore be worth a lot of money to competitors. Employee A is accused of some other violation of the code of conduct and is under investigation by The Company. The accusations are not supported by facts, so Employee A does not fear a loss of livelihood especially because Employee A has never heard of someone being wrongly declared guilty of misconduct. Employee A rationally predicts that the benefit to risk ratio of complying with the non-disclosure agreement far outweighs that of not complying. There is no misconduct.
- Employee A is bound by an enduring non-disclosure agreement and Employee B is not, but Employee A is unaware of that fact. Employee A needs some help to complete some portion of their work and asks Employee B’s supervisor if Employee B is bound by a non-disclosure agreement. The supervisor tells Employee A that Employee B is not under an NDA and may not be qualified to help. Employee A looks for help elsewhere. There is no misconduct.
- Employee A is bound by an enduring non-disclosure agreement and Employee B is not. Employee B determines that they can gain a productivity advantage over coworkers if they have access to intellectual Property belonging to The Company. Employee B explains this to Employee A and explains that handing over the intellectual property will make Employee A look good, and Employee A disagrees and explains The Company’s policy to Employee B. Employee A arranges for Employee B to enter into a non-disclosure agreement with The Company and to receive intellectual property security training. There is no misconduct.
