SoylentNews

Zenimax Sues Oculus on Trade Secrets

posted by martyb on Thursday May 22 2014, @02:26PM   
from the money-see-money-do dept.

c0lo writes:

Just in: many news outlets report on Zenimax suing Oculus over misappropriation of trade secrets.

ArsTechnica has a good timeline of the "brawl" (too long to post here, but RTFA for it):

What started merely as strongly worded letters and back-and-forth accusations between Id Software parent company ZeniMax Media and VR headset maker Oculus has now turned into an actual legal case. ZeniMax today filed a federal lawsuit in the Northern Texas district accusing Oculus of misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement, breach of contract, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, trademark infringement, and false designation.

In a statement, an Oculus spokesperson said "the lawsuit filed by ZeniMax has no merit whatsoever. As we have previously said, ZeniMax did not contribute to any Oculus technology. Oculus will defend these claims vigorously."

Popcorn, anyone?

[Details on the lawsuit here]

• Re:What Fools These Mortals Be Re:What Fools These Mortals Be (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 22 2014, @05:29PM

  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 22 2014, @05:29PM (#46465)

  "trade secrets" haven't got any legal protection at all

  Wikipedia begs to differ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secrets#Curren t_regulation [wikipedia.org]

  Parent

  Starting Score:	0		points
  Moderation		+1
  Informative=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Informative' Modifier		0
  Total Score:		1

• Re:What Fools These Mortals Be (Score: 2) by monster on Friday May 23 2014, @06:53AM

  by monster (1260) on Friday May 23 2014, @06:53AM (#46650) Journal

  Ok, my comment was too categoric. Anyway, from the "Uniform Trade Secrets Act" page [wikipedia.org]:

  "Misappropriation" means:

          (i) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or
          (ii) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who

                  (A) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or
                  (B) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was

                          (I) derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it;
                          (II) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
                          (III) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or

                  (C) before a material change of his [or her] position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.

  Now, how does hiring an employee with specialized knowledge in the field fits in that definition? Unless he took code with him, it doesn't(*), and Carmack is no fool.

  (*) Making "having worked in the same field" fit the definition would make 99% of technical employees unhireable.

  Parent