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.
Taiwan’s victory in the World Baseball Softball Confederation Premier12 championship is an historic achievement. Yet once again this achievement is marred by the indignity of the imposed moniker “Chinese Taipei.” The absurdity is compounded by the fact that none of the players are even from Taipei, and some, such as Paiwan catcher Giljegiljaw Kungkuan, are not even ethnically Chinese. The issue garnered attention around the Paris Olympics, yet fell off the agenda as Olympic memories retreated. “Chinese Taipei” persists, and the baseball championship serves as a reminder that fighting “Chinese Taipei” must be a continuous campaign, not merely resurfacing around international
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) appears to be encountering some culture shock and safety issues at its new fab in Arizona. On Nov. 7, Arizona state authorities cited TSMC for worker safety violations, fining the company US$16,131, after a man died in May. The Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health released its six-month investigation into the fatality and cited TSMC for failing to keep the workplace free from hazards likely to cause death or serious harm. At about the same time, the chip giant was also sued for alleged discriminatory hiring practices favoring Asians, prompting a flurry of debate on whether TSMC’s
This month, the National Health Insurance (NHI) is to implement a major policy change by eliminating the suspension-and-resumption mechanism for Taiwanese residing abroad. With more than 210,000 Taiwanese living overseas — many with greater financial means than those in Taiwan — this reform, catalyzed by a 2022 Constitutional Court ruling, underscores the importance of fairness, sustainability and shared responsibility in one of the world’s most admired public healthcare systems. Beyond legal obligations, expatriates have a compelling moral duty to contribute, recognizing their stake in a system that embodies the principle of health as a human right. The ruling declared the prior
US president-elect Donald Trump is inheriting from President Joe Biden a challenging situation for American policy in the Indo-Pacific region, with an expansionist China on the march and threatening to incorporate Taiwan, by force if necessary. US policy choices have become increasingly difficult, in part because Biden’s policy of engagement with China, including investing in personal diplomacy with President Xi Jinping (習近平), has not only yielded little but also allowed the Chinese military to gain a stronger footing in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait. In Xi’s Nov. 16 Lima meeting with a diminished Biden, the Chinese strongman signaled little
RSS