Trademark Infringement Learning Objectives After completing this section, you will be able to Identify the factors involved in trademark infringement. Understand the basis for determining similarity. Trademark Infringement and Remedies Before reading this section, please watch the overview video below covering similarity, market confusion, vicarious infringement, and getting back what’s yours. The purpose of trademarks is to enable consumers to distinguish the source of products and services as well as help businesses defend the quality and reputation of those goods. Trademarks benefit society by protecting consumers and businesses alike, and by preventing confusion in the marketplace. This principle lies at the heart of the trademark system. It is also the basis on which the courts rule on claims of trademark infringement. The most common way that trademark infringement causes confusion is through similarity . In the words of the Lanham Act, no trademark may be registered “which so resembles” another name or mark that it will be likely “to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1052 Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1052 To determine similarity, the mark must be evaluated as a whole rather than through its individual components. This is important because there are only a limited number of parts—words, names, shapes, symbols, or devices—that can be used separately or together to create a unique and distinctive trademark that indicates the origin of goods. The courts generally look at five key factors to determine if a defendant’s use of your mark is likely to cause confusion among consumers. The two most important are: The similarity in the overall impression created by the two marks (including the marks’ look, phonetic similarities, and underlying meanings) The similarities of the goods and services involved. But the court also looks at three other factors: The strength of your mark. Any evidence of actual confusion by consumers. The intent of the defendant in adopting its mark. The basis for determining similarity, again, is not an assessment of the similarity between each component of two trademarks but of their totality as seen and experienced by the consumer. And the key test for similarity is resemblance , not sameness . In short, two marks do not have to be exact mirror images of each other to be legally similar. According to a 2003 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, “Similarity is not a binary factor but is a matter of degree." In re Coors Brewing Co., Fed. Cir. 2003 Retrieved from: http://www.ipo.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Federal_Circuit_Opinions&ContentID=4174&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm. Each and every attribute of a mark need not be replicated exactly by those of another mark to be deemed similar. But the more one mark’s attributes are similar to those of another, the greater the likelihood that there is legal similarity between the marks as a whole. The social networking site LinkedIn, for example, sports a logo made up of the joined words “Linked” and “in” displayed in a white font with the “in” component surrounded by a blue colored square with rounded edges. If a new networking site for professionals was launched that featured a logo with the same words except that the “in” component was surrounded by a red colored square, there would likely be enough similarity between the two logos to justify a case for infringement. The colors of one component of the logo may be different, but when the concept, wording, font style, and design are considered as a whole, any judge or jury would probably find the similarity between the marks so substantial as to constitute infringement. But similarity is not the only basis for assessing infringement. The question is also whether any similarity between marks is likely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers. This takes into account such factors as the similarity of the goods and services on which the two marks are being used. If a company that made metal chains called itself “LinkedIn,” that would less likely cause consumers to believe that the chains came from the same source as the social networking site, because the manufacture of chains is a very different line of business than running a social networking site. An entity can be guilty of contributory infringement if it intentionally encourages the infringement of a valid mark by a third party. One can also be liable for contributory infringement if one continues to produce or distribute a product with knowledge that the beneficiary is infringing a mark. As the Supreme Court held in the 1982 case Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc. , “If a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe a trademark, or if it continues to supply its product to one whom it knows or has reason to know is engaging in trademark infringement, the manufacturer or distributor is contributorily responsible for any harm done as a result of the deceit.” Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc. , 456 U.S. 844, 854 (1982) Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5946191720195736097&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr. “ If a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe a trademark, or if it continues to supply its product to one whom it knows or has reason to know is engaging in trademark infringement, the manufacturer or distributor is contributorily responsible for any harm done as a result of the deceit .” Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc. , 456 U.S. 844, 854 (1982) Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5946191720195736097&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr. - Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc. Another type of infringement is vicarious infringement . The definition of vicarious infringement is somewhat convoluted, but Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute describes it thusly: “A person may be held liable for the infringing acts committed by another if he or she had the right and ability to control the infringing activities and had a direct financial interest in such activities. The existence of direct infringement is required to establish a claim of vicarious infringement; however, it is not necessary for the alleged infringer to have intent or knowledge of the infringement.” Derived from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vicarious_infringement. Vicarious infringement most often occurs on Internet sites that allow outside parties to post or upload files. One such example was Sega Enters., Ltd. v. MAPHIA ., in which third parties uploaded unauthorized games that displayed the Sega mark to the Maphia site with the knowledge and consent of—and to the profit of—Maphia owners. Finally, there is a form of harm called trademark dilution , which is described by the International Trademark Association as “the weakening of a famous mark’s ability to identify and distinguish goods or services, regardless of competition in the marketplace or the likelihood of confusion. Dilution typically occurs as the result of blurring or tarnishment of the famous mark. . . . The concept of dilution developed from the idea that because some marks are so well-known and famous, they deserve an extra level of protection beyond the likelihood-of-confusion analysis. Dilution theory seeks to prevent the coexistence of a mark that is sufficiently similar to a famous mark, regardless of the goods and/or services associated with the allegedly diluting mark.” The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 and the Federal Dilution Revision Act of 2006 created a federal cause of action for trademark dilution that is separate from infringement. Generally speaking, an owner of a trademark eligible for dilution protection can prevent another company from using that mark no matter how dissimilar the goods and services of the two companies are. That makes dilution protection potentially broader in scope than infringement protection. After the 2006 revision, however, only marks that are “widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States” are eligible for dilution protection, which means that only a very small percentage of trademarks used in the United States—undoubtedly less than 1 percent—qualify for that protection. Google has protection against dilution. Your local dry cleaner does not.

Business


Trademark Remedies Learning Objectives After completing this section, you will be able to Explain remedies for trademark infringement. Discuss effects of infringement. Remedies for trademark infringement are similar to those available to owners of other intellectual property, including the possibility of receiving monetary damages for lost profits and injunctive relief. But even more so than is the case with patent and copyright owners, trademark owners almost invariably insist on injunctive (e.g. prohibiting continued sales) to cure the infringement. That’s because when a trademark is infringed, the biggest loss to the owner is not necessarily revenue but the potential damage to the reputation of the brand in the minds of consumers. Imagine, for example, that a manufacturer in Bangladesh started shipping substandard athletic shoes with the Nike “Swoosh” on them into the U.S. market. The loss of revenue resulting from U.S. customers mistakenly buying the Bangladeshi manufacturer’s counterfeit shoes might not amount even to a rounding error on Nike’s books. But if customers began to lose trust in the “Swoosh” symbol as a reliable indicator of Nike’s quality design and manufacturing, the damage to Nike’s brand and future profits could be significant. The company would want to secure an immediate injunction against the importation of the offending shoes and thereby stop the ongoing damage to its trademark and brand. Incidentally, in cases where the products being imported are not patented or copyrighted, the courts may only require the importer to stop use of the mark, but allow for the continued importation of the product. See William R. Warner & Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 265 U.S. 526 (1924) Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=265&invol=526. In addition to injunctive relief, monetary damages may also be awarded in trademark infringement cases. Monetary damages are primarily aimed at compensating trademark owners for lost profits due to the infringing activity, and may be trebled if the infringement is deemed intentional. The courts may base an award on any or all of the following measures: The defendant’s profits, either as an indicator of the plaintiff’s loss or under an unjust enrichment theory. Actual business damages and losses suffered by the mark owner as a result of the infringement, including lost profits and the cost of notifying customers. Punitive damages to punish the infringer (available in state courts only) Reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by the mark owner to prosecute the case.

Business


Fair Use of Trademarks (credit: Kellogg's via Wikimedia Commons / Public domain) Learning Objectives After completing this section, you will be able to Discuss fair use of trademarks. Identify examples of fair use cases. Not every use of a trademark is infringement. Individuals and entities may be permitted the fair use of another’s trademark under two conditions. These are known as nominative fair use and classic fair use . Nominative fair use covers many occasions on which a party other than the trademark owner is using the mark another party to refer to genuine goods or services. An example of nominative fair use is when an auto repair shop advertises that it repairs BMWs and Hondas. It is using the mark “Honda” to refer to cars genuinely produced by the Honda Motor Company, and simply asserting that it is able to conduct repairs on those cars. Another example of nominative fair use is use of a competitor’s trademark in comparative advertising. When Verizon advertises that it has better coverage than AT&T, it is making nominative fair use of AT&T’s mark because it is actually referring to AT&T’s services. Under nominative fair use, the entity using the trademark is permitted to use only so much of the mark as is necessary to identify the good or service to which it is referring, and cannot imply any sponsorship or endorsement by the mark holder (unless, of course, the repair shop really is a BMW- or Honda- approved repair facility). Another example is the use of another’s trademark for the purpose of a product review. Classic fair use occurs when a trademark is used in good faith for its primary meaning, and no consumer confusion is likely to occur. Classic fair uses typically involve marks that are descriptive. For example, even though Kellogg’s has gained secondary meaning for the mark “All Bran,” another cereal manufacturer might be able to describe its cereal as “all bran,” if indeed it consists entirely of the hard outer layers of cereal grains. Although fair use of trademarks is in many ways similar to the fair use of copyrights, there are differences. Under copyright law, you can use a copyright for the purpose of parody. You can also use trademarks for the purpose of parody, but whoever does so must be very careful to avoid confusion in the marketplace and diluting or tarnishing the trademark in question.

Business


Introduction (credit: modification of work “hush!” by Pixel Addict/flikr.com, CC BY 2.0)

Business


Trade Secret Protection (credit: modification of work by Michael Galpert via flickr / CC BY 2.0) Learning Objectives After completing this section, you will be able to Define trade secrets. Identify the advantages and disadvantages of protecting intellectual property through trade secrets. What Is a Trade Secret? Trade secret law is a source of protection for intellectual property that serves as an alternative to patent or trademark law. Whereas patent and trademark law require that the intellectual property to be protected be publicly “disclosed” (for example, through a patent application), trade secret law requires precisely the opposite—that is, that the intellectual property to be protected not be publicly disclosed. The subject matter of a trade secret may be virtually any information that is of value as a result of not being generally known. There is enormous economic value in trade secrets—for companies and countries. A study released in March of 2014 estimated that trade secret misappropriation costs the world’s top 40 economies between 1 percent and 3 percent of their gross domestic product each year. “ Economic Impact of Trade Secret Theft ,” PricewaterhouseCoopers, retrieved from: http://pwc.to/1sVx3AP Unlike copyright and patent law, there is no formal requirement of “novelty” or “tangibility” under trade secret law. Rather, trade secret protection is extended to information that has independent economic value by virtue of not being generally known or readily ascertainable by others, and which has been subject to reasonable efforts to avoid public disclosure. Advantages and Disadvantages of Trade Secret Law There are both advantages and disadvantages to protecting intellectual property through the use of trade secret law. The decision of whether to use trade secret law as opposed to other legal means of protecting knowledge or information is governed primarily by the nature of the intellectual property to be protected. Advantages One of the main advantages of trade secret law is that it provides indefinite future protection. Unlike the 20-year time limit that underlies the protection granted to a patent holder, there is no definite time limit placed on the protection granted to a trade secret owner. This indefinite future protection granted to trade secrets is appealing, assuming that the intellectual property to be protected is likely to remain generally unknown well into the future. For example, if the intellectual property to be protected is a method of manufacturing a product that can be determined from examining the product, then the best way to protect the new method of manufacture might be through a patent. On the other hand, if the new method of manufacturing the product cannot be determined from examination of the product, then the best way to protect the intellectual property might be to treat it as a trade secret. Disadvantages Although there is no definite expiration of the protection granted to trade secrets, the protection prohibits only the disclosure or use of the trade secret by one to whom the secret was disclosed in confidence. Unlike patent law, trade secret law does not offer any affirmative protection against the use of the same intellectual property that is independently derived or reverse engineered by a competitor. Consequently, if the intellectual property to be protected is a new method of manufacturing a product, and if that method of manufacture is ascertainable from an examination of the product, then the best form of protection for the intellectual property is most likely that offered by patent law. The same analysis applies to intellectual property that is likely to be independently derived by a competitor. For as the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft Boats , 489 U.S. 141 (1989). state trade secret law has never given the holder of a trade secret protection against reverse engineering by the public or a competitor. The Supreme Court commented that in order to receive protection from reverse engineering, the holder of the intellectual property must seek the protection of federal patent law. Pros and Cons of Trade Secret Law Pros Cons Trade secret law provides indefinite future protection, so long as the trade secret stays a secret. Trade secret protection has no expiration date. If someone came up with the same idea on their own, the trade secret is no longer protected by law. Trade secret protection prevents the disclosure or use of the trade secret by one to whom the secret was disclosed in confidence. Trade secret law does not give the holder of a trade secret protection from reverse engineering by the public or a competitor. Whereas patent and trademark law involve an affirmative assertion of an intellectual property right, trade secret law only actively operates after a misappropriation or threatened misappropriation of the trade secret has occurred. Due to this difference in the way trade secret law protects intellectual property, the protections given to trade secrets are largely dependent on classifications of information made by courts. Thus, the foundation and development of trade secret law in the United States is inherently tied to the statutes protecting trade secrets, and the court decisions defining and interpreting the statutory protections created for trade secrets.

Business


The Foundations of Trade Secrets Law Learning Objectives After completing this section, you will be able to Identify the roots of trade secret law in the United States. Explain the purpose of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Unlike patents and copyrights that are issued in accordance with federal law, trade secret protection until very recently emanated from state law. But on May 11, 2016, the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) was signed into law, thereby creating a federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation that largely mirrors the current state of the law under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), which has been adopted by 48 states. Trade secret law in the United States is largely rooted in the English legal tradition, and was first incorporated through the court-made common law. The general consensus is that trade secret law originated in England in the early 1800s. Michael Risch, Why Do We Have Trade Secrets?, 11 Intellectual Property L. Rev. 1 (2007) (citing Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 39 cmt. a (1995). Early cases dealt with trade secret concepts not in modern trade secret vernacular but instead through the guise of jurisdictional or restraint of trade terms. The trade secret concept began in American jurisprudence in the case of Vickery v. Welch , 36 Mass. 523 (1837). The Massachusetts Supreme Court first expounded on trade secret law in modern terms in Peabody v. Norfolk , 98 Mass. 452 (1868). In the 145 years since the Peabody decision, the courts, including numerous federal courts, have addressed trade secret issues and have contributed to the current body of trade secret law. However, because each state may regulate trade secret law independently, each state has developed its own legal regime, involving a mixture of both statutes and common law, to regulate and protect trade secrets. Uniform Trade Secrets Act In an effort to harmonize and standardize trade secret law in the United States, the Uniform Law Commission The Uniform Law Commission, also known as the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that promotes the uniformity of law from state to state. The Commission publishes “model laws” that states are then able to adopt and enact. published the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) in 1979. The UTSA sought to create a uniform trade secret law regime from state to state. However, the UTSA itself was not binding upon states at publication. In order for the UTSA to be successful, the states themselves needed to adopt and enact the model UTSA statute created by the commission. In 1980, Minnesota became the first state to adopt the UTSA. Since 1980, most states have adopted the UTSA, many with the 1985 amendments to the act. New York and Massachusetts remain the last states that have yet to adopt the UTSA. Although the UTSA harmonized various state law approaches to trade secrets, each state enacts the UTSA with any modifications or customizations the state legislature desires to make. Thus, although most states have adopted the UTSA, each state may have a slightly different adaptation of the UTSA. One important provision of the UTSA is section 7, which deals with the interaction of the UTSA and state law. Section 7 preempts certain state law causes of action. Section 7 “displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law…providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.” Trade Secret Misappropriation Although this section seems to indicate that the UTSA broadly replaces all state laws dealing with misappropriation of trade secrets, there is debate as to what constitutes “conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law.” Additionally, what it means for a common law remedy to be “based on” misappropriation of a trade secret is often contested. Owners seeking to recover damages for misappropriation generally argue that only common law causes of action that have elements identical to the UTSA are preempted, while defendants argue that any cause of action used to protect trade secrets is preempted because it is duplicative of the UTSA. Despite this potential conflict between the UTSA and state common law, this chapter focuses on the main body of trade secret law as governed by the UTSA.

Business


Elements of a Trade Secret Learning Objectives After completing this section, you will be able to Identify the key criteria used to qualify as a trade secret. Explain how ideas can be protected as trade secrets. To qualify as a trade secret, the information in question must meet two essential criteria. First, the information must attain its value from the fact that it is not generally known. Second, the owner of that information must take reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. Absent these two elements, information does not qualify as a trade secret and is not entitled to trade secret protections that prevent or remedy misappropriation under the UTSA. The UTSA defines a trade secret as “information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” Trade secrets are not limited to particular subject matters, although the knowledge or information to be protected need not take any particular form. A trade secret can be information or knowledge in the form of a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process. Although the UTSA defines what may be a trade secret, various courts interpreting the UTSA have come to different conclusions on what type of material should be considered a trade secret. For example, whereas courts have found that an insurer’s database is a trade secret under Wisconsin law, a similar database was found not to be a trade secret in Rhode Island. Compare American Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roth 485 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2007); APG Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp. 436 F.3d 294, 307 (1st Cir 2006). The Value of Secrets For information or knowledge in any of the above forms to be considered a trade secret, it must derive independent economic value because it is not generally known to, nor readily ascertainable by, other persons who can profit from its disclosure or use. Some examples of information courts have found to be trade secrets include computer software, sales information, customer information, and manufacturing formulas. However, merely because information is not known to the public does not necessarily make the information a trade secret. For example, information that is not generally known by the public but is known by different manufacturers in the same industry likely does not qualify as a trade secret. See e.g. Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. , 467 U.S. 986, 1002 (1984); Speedry Chemical Products, Inc. v. Carter’s Ink Co. , 306 F.2d 328, 331 (2d Cir 1962). Material that is ascertainable through public sources generally does not derive independent economic value justifying trade secret protection. If the information in question cannot be quickly or easily ascertained from examining or testing the publicly available product, then it is more likely to be a trade secret. See Morlife, Inc. v. Perry , 56 Cal. App. 4th 1514 (1st Dist. 1997). Conversely, if the information may be discovered through public observation of the product or the company’s displays, it is unlikely to be a trade secret. See MicroStrategy Inc. v. Business Objects , S.A., 331 F. Supp. 2d 396,417 (E.D. Va. 2004). For example, customer lists are not considered trade secrets when the identity of the customers could potentially be discovered through public sources. However, identical information if not available through public sources could constitute a trade secret. Compare Inflight Newspapers, Inc. v. Magazines In-Flight, LLC, 990 F. Supp. 119, 129-30 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) (holding that the plaintiff’s customer lists were not trade secrets because the customer identity could be easily found through publicly available means, such as the Internet, trade shows, and trade directories) with North Atl. Instruments, Inc. v. Haber , 188 F.3d 38, 44 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1999) (finding that a customer list kept in confidence may be treated as a trade secret). Additionally, processes or systems that are simply a compilation of known information generally do not rise to the level of trade secrets. The courts, however, are still quite divided on this issue. (credit: modification of work by Nial Bradshaw via flickr / CC BY 2.0) Protecting Ideas as Trade Secrets In addition to information, certain ideas may constitute trade secrets. Although ideas were not protected as trade secrets under common law, the UTSA provides protection for certain novel and concrete ideas. For example, remedies for misappropriation of an idea may be permitted based on the existence of a confidential relationship. The elements that must be proven under this common theory are: (1) a novel or original idea; (2) reduced to concrete form; (3) disclosed to the defendant in a confidential relationship, i.e., one in which it would be implied that use would not be made without compensation; and, (4) used by the defendant. Protection of an idea may also be permitted on the basis of a contractual relationship with the defendant. Parties may enter into a contract to protect an idea being submitted or disclosed to another person or company. The major benefit of a contract to the submitter of an idea is evidence of a protected disclosure that is deserving of trade secret protections. The major benefit of a contract to the recipient of an idea is the establishment of the ground rules under which compensation, if any, will be payable to the submitter. Corporations that receive unsolicited ideas many times grapple with how to best protect use of those unsolicited ideas. To protect themselves from the uncertainties of trade secrets law, the idea must be converted from an unsolicited idea to a solicited idea. This may be accomplished by contacting the submitter and alerting them that the idea will be considered only with the understanding that the use of the idea, and decisions regarding compensation for that idea, rest solely with the corporation. Whether the trade secret takes the form of information or an idea, the owner of that trade secret must show not only that the trade secret was not generally known or readily ascertainable, but also that the lack of general knowledge of the trade secret conferred some value to the owner. When the owner derives a profit from licensing the use of the protected information, the value to the owner is quite apparent. However, in cases where the owner is seeking to show he was injured in the marketplace or through the loss of profits after costly research and development, the value may only become apparent by inference. But even if information is not generally known and gives the owner some value, the information is not a trade secret unless the owner takes steps to protect the secrecy of the information.

Business


The Secrecy Requirement (credit: Rob Pongsajapan via flickr / CC BY 2.0) Learning Objectives After completing this section, you will be able to Explain the steps that businesses can take in order to protect trade secrets. Describe how trade secrets can be accessed through passive and active disclosure. The second element necessary to gain trade secret protection is evidence that the trade secret’s owner made a reasonable effort to maintain secrecy. This flexible standard set out by the UTSA is often a point of contention, which results in litigation. To determine whether a piece of information rises to the level of a trade secret, courts often engage in a highly factual inquiry into the security measures taken by the owner to protect a trade secret. For as the Supreme Court has noted, if an owner has not taken steps to protect the trade secret, their proprietary interests may be diminished. See Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. , 467 U.S. 986, 1002 (1984). Under Company Lock and Key Because the UTSA may be varied by any state, the level of secrecy required varies from state to state. For example, a version of the UTSA adopted by some states contains a provision that reduces the burden of secrecy placed on the owner of a trade secret. Specifically, this version of the UTSA provides that the existence of a trade secret is not negated merely because an employee or other person has acquired the trade secret without express or specific notice that it is a trade secret if, under all the circumstances, the employee or other person knows or has reason to know that the owner intends or expects the secrecy of the type of information comprising the trade secret to be maintained. Although this provision tips the scales in favor of trade secret protection, it should not be viewed as removing the affirmative obligation the UTSA places on one seeking protection of trade secrets. In both states that have and have not modified the UTSA in this manner, the measures taken to secure the information are key to finding whether the information will be protected as a trade secret. Because trade secret protection is only given to information that is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy, every person or company that desires to protect its trade secrets under the UTSA should adopt and implement a trade secret protection plan. The specific elements of such a plan will vary depending on the nature of the intellectual property to be protected, as well as the circumstances surrounding its development and use. However, in taking reasonable efforts to protect the secrecy of the information, many different factors are considered. Because no rigid formula exists to determine if reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy are in place, courts look to many of the best practices, discussed below, to determine whether an owner of information made reasonable efforts to protect its secrecy. Protection Plans Memorializing a trade secret protection plan in writing helps to ensure that the business or person is indeed taking reasonable measures to protect the trade secret. The person or company seeking to protect its intellectual property through the use of trade secret law should maintain a written statement of its trade secret security policy. This statement can be written in the form of a policy manual and helps prevent situations in which “unwritten rules” are followed or rules are enforced in a lax manner and then eventually ignored. Moreover, should litigation become necessary, it is easier to persuade a court that the security procedures were indeed a primary concern if they are enumerated in writing. However, if security measures are merely written, but not followed, it may be difficult to prove reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy. See Lexis-Nexis v. Beer , 41 F. Supp.2d 950 (D. Minn. 1999). A trade secret protection plan should include a program for ensuring that employees are made aware of the trade secret status of information and that the employees are periodically reminded of their confidentiality obligations. Discussions between the employer and the employee may be appropriate. Writing an annual conflict of interest letter to remind management-level employees of their responsibilities in keeping information confidential may also suffice. An essential part of this program is making certain that employees are aware of and familiar with the written trade secret protection plan discussed above. Employees should also be required to sign confidentiality agreements acknowledging that they have access to trade secret information, that they will not disclose or misappropriate that information, and that they will report all disclosures. Finally, “exit interviews” should be conducted for employees leaving the company. This interview provides an opportunity to remind employees of their written obligation not to disclose or misuse any trade secret information, and to extend an open door to discuss any issues or concerns that may arise in connection with their future employment. Compare Electro-Craft Corp. v. Controlled Motion, Inc. , 332 N.W.2d 890 (Minn. 1983) (confidentiality agreement signed by employees failed to identify with sufficient particularity what were and were not trade secrets; plaintiff began conducting “exit interviews” ten days after litigation commenced) and Gordon Employment, Inc. v. Jewel , 356 N.W.2d 738 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984) (confidentiality never discussed with employees). In addition to educating employees, reasonable efforts to protect information often include physically restricting access to trade secrets. Trade secret information should be treated differently from nonproprietary information and should, if possible, be physically segregated so that it is not readily accessible. For example, it is not uncommon to restrict visitor access to sales and administrative headquarters. In addition, access to the intellectual property should be restricted to those with a need to know or access the information. Depending on the nature of the intellectual property to be protected, reasonably restricting access to trade secrets may be as simple as segregating the information in separate file drawers, or may require measures as extreme as designating an entirely separate facility to house the intellectual property. Id. If possible under the circumstances, physical security measures should be instituted, including the use of locks on doors, gates, and cabinets containing trade secrets. These physical security steps should be obvious to both employees and third parties who may have occasion to visit the area in which trade secrets are stored. Id. These types of security measures communicate that an effort is being made to protect the information. Strategies for Protecting Trade Secrets Given the ease with which documents can be reproduced, trade secrets that are reduced to writing should be treated with special care. Documents containing trade secrets should be clearly labeled with shorthand instructions that are consistent with the written trade secret protection plan. For example, documents may be marked “secret” or “confidential.” See Gemisys Corp. v. Phoenix American, Inc. , 186 F.R.D. 551, 558-62 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Access to these documents should be monitored and all persons allowed access to the documents should be informed of the meaning of the trade secret designation on the document and the relevant provisions of the written trade secret protection plan. This attention to detail should also be followed in arranging for proper destruction of the documents. Electro-Craft Corp. v. Controlled Motion, Inc. , 332 N.W.2d 890 (Minn. 1983) (no technical documents were marked “confidential”). Like trade secrets that are reduced to writing, trade secrets stored on a computer system are particularly susceptible to theft. Access to a computer system containing trade secrets should be restricted in accordance with the written trade secret protection plan and all physical computer- related items such as discs and printouts should contain the same trade secret legend used to identify documents containing intellectual property. When allowing third parties, be they members of the public or business associates, access to a facility in which trade secrets are stored or used, care must be taken to ensure that trade secrets are not inadvertently disclosed. Disclosure can occur either passively or actively. Passive disclosure might occur by carelessly leaving documents containing trade secrets in open view when business associates from another company visit your facility. Active disclosure might occur during a guided tour of the facility when a tour guide reveals the nature of a project or process the company is working on or has recently perfected. Id. (confidentiality procedures inadequate where, among other things, plaintiff allowed public tour of its plants). The type of active trade secret disclosure that can occur outside of the facility where trade secrets are housed is through the dissemination of confidential information at trade shows, in magazine articles, in publications, in press releases, or during public speeches. Such disclosures often occur unwittingly because they are made by marketing executives or mid-level managers who are not themselves instrumental in the development of the trade secret and who are often charged with a goal somewhat at odds with maintaining the secrecy of intellectual property—that is, their duty often is to publicly disclose the company’s achievements. Similar difficulties might arise when engineers or those responsible for the creation of trade secrets exchange ideas with their colleagues from other companies at professional seminars. See e.g. Mobile Med. Int’l Corp. v. United States , 95 Fed. Cl. 706, 739 (Fed. Cl. 2010) (finding that although plaintiff may have taken some measures to maintain the secrecy of its trade information, plaintiff’s assertions of confidentiality and the steps taken to protect its information were wholly undermined by its publicly displaying a model unit at a trade show). One method of curtailing such disclosures is to insist that all publications, articles, and speeches be reviewed and approved by a “filter” committee prior to dissemination. Gallowhur Chem. Corp. v. Schwerdle , 37 N.J. Super. 385, 117 A.2d 416, 423, 108 U.S.P.Q. 260 (1955) (information communicated in a public lecture revealed trade secret); Fishing Concepts, Inc. v. Ross , 1985 WL 1549 (D. Minn. 1985) (information claimed secret was revealed in article published in advertising magazine). Although the very nature of many businesses requires that a company disclose its trade secrets to prospective buyers, licensees, joint venturers, or other outsiders, this does not mean that a company must surrender all rights to its trade secrets. Rather, when the company enters into a transaction with a third party, it should cautiously monitor the flow of information to the third party and document the nature of the trade secrets exposed and the specific limited use to which they may be put. Id. You might consider putting outsiders on notice regarding the need to keep information confidential, and even require the signing of confidentiality agreements. The standard of what constitutes reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy varies substantially depending upon the circumstances and the information that is being protected. However, the different methods of maintaining secrecy discussed above all often help to show that the information in question qualifies as a trade secret, and deserves trade secret protection.

Business


Misappropriation of Trade Secrets (credit: Michael Galpert via flickr / CC BY 2.0) Learning Objectives After completing this section, you will be able to Describe the differences between the misappropriation of a trade secret through improper means and disclosure without consent. Explain how trade secret owners use direct evidence and circumstantial evidence to prove that a misappropriation of trade secrets has occurred. The enforcement provisions of the UTSA allow companies and individuals to protect information that qualifies as a trade secret. The protections allowed for by the UTSA are triggered by the actual or threatened “misappropriation” of trade secrets. “Misappropriation” is defined in two ways: (1) acquisition of a trade secret through improper means, or (2) disclosure or use of a trade secret without consent. Misappropriation through Improper Means The first type of misappropriation under the UTSA is acquisition of a trade secret through improper means. Specifically, the UTSA prohibits the “acquisition of a trade secret of another, by a person who knows or has reason to know the trade secret was acquired by improper means.” See Unif. Trade Secrets Act § 1(2)(i), U.L.A (1985). “Improper means” includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means. See Unif. Trade Secrets Act § 1(1), U.L.A (1985). In short, the first type of misappropriation is the mere possession of a trade secret that has been acquired through theft or the breach of a duty to maintain the secrecy of the trade secret. Misappropriation through Disclosure The second type of misappropriation under the UTSA is the disclosure or use of someone else’s trade secret without their express or implied consent. Although the statutory definition is somewhat complicated, the UTSA essentially prohibits the disclosure or use of a trade secret that is possessed as a result of theft, breach of a duty to maintain its secrecy, or an accident or mistake on the part of the trade secret owner. See Unif. Trade Secrets Act §§ 2(2)(ii)(A)-(C), U.L.A (1985). In short, the UTSA prohibits the disclosure or use of a trade secret that is possessed as a result of “improper means” as defined in the preceding paragraph. The rule of thumb is that if you possess, disclose, or use a trade secret that you know or have reason to know is not intended to be revealed to you, beware. UTSA’s Definition of Misappropriation The UTSA’s definition of misappropriation is rather broad. The protection granted to trade secret owners under the UTSA is further expanded by prohibiting not only the actual, but also the threatened, misappropriation of trade secrets. The distinction between these two types of misappropriation is basically one of timing. The UTSA prohibits the actual disclosure of trade secrets and provides remedies for those whose trade secrets have already been misappropriated. A more difficult question arises, however, with respect to a trade secret owner’s rights prior to the actual misappropriation of trade secrets. To address a trade secret owner’s legitimate concerns that misappropriation may occur in the future, the UTSA prohibits “threatened” misappropriation. A trade secret owner may assert legal rights subsequent to any actual unauthorized disclosure or use of trade secrets. In such situations, the wrong has already occurred and the trade secret owner may seek judicial intervention concerning any legal rights that were violated. This is true regardless of whether the misappropriator obtained the secret without the owner’s consent, or originally with consent but later used the secret for the misappropriator’s own gain. The burden of proof in an actual misappropriation case is still squarely on the shoulders of the trade secret owner who is alleging that trade secrets have been misappropriated. This burden of proof requires the trade secret owner to demonstrate that he or she was in possession of knowledge or information that was not generally known and was valuable precisely because it was not generally known, and that the knowledge or information was subject to efforts that were reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. Depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case, together with the nature of the intellectual property to be protected, proving the elements necessary to make out a trade secret case can be a challenging undertaking. The best way to establish a foundation for successful prosecution of trade secret misappropriation is to follow closely the provisions of a written trade secret protection plan, and take measures to ensure the security of the information as discussed above. Perhaps the most interesting trade secret cases involve the alleged threatened misappropriation of trade secrets. In these cases, the trade secret owner does not contend that their trade secrets have already been compromised, but rather that unless some action is taken to halt the current progress of events, their trade secrets will be misappropriated at some time in the future. Threatened misappropriation cases often arise when a highly skilled or trained employee who has been exposed to a company’s trade secrets leaves the company’s employ and goes to work for a competitor. On the one hand, the former employer may well have legitimate concerns about possible disclosure of its trade secrets to a competitor; on the other hand, the employee has a right to choose an employer. Consequently, courts are required to balance these competing interests. The result often depends on the legitimacy of the trade secret owner’s concerns of misappropriation and the nature of the evidence that is available to substantiate those concerns. When faced with a situation where an employee who has been exposed to trade secrets leaves to work for a new employer, courts typically consider three factors: (1) whether the former employer and the new employer are competitors, (2) whether the employee’s new position is comparable to the former position, and (3) the efficacy of steps taken by the new employer to prevent the misappropriation of trade secrets. Surgidev Corp. v. Eye Technology Inc. , 648 F. Supp. 661, 695 (D. Minn. 1986), aff’d, 828 F.2d 452 (8th Cir. 1987). Mere suspicion that another party may have wrongfully disclosed or used one’s trade secrets, in and of itself, does not enable the trade secret owner to assert these rights successfully. Courts will not prohibit the wrongful use or disclosure of trade secrets based upon the mere uneasiness or suspicions of the trade secret owner that some misappropriation may occur. Rather, the trade secret owner is required to demonstrate that the concerns of misappropriation are legitimate. In most situations, this means that the trade secret owner will be required to present evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that misappropriation is likely to occur. A trade secret owner may present direct or circumstantial evidence to demonstrate that there is an imminent threatened misappropriation of trade secrets. Direct evidence exists when the trade secret owner can demonstrate that action has already been taken, or words have already been spoken, that indicate that misappropriation of trade secrets is going to occur. Common examples of direct evidence supporting a trade secret owner’s legitimate concerns of threatened misappropriation are statements made by the former employee or the new employer. Former employees might make statements about the relative lack of weight they give to their former employer’s confidentiality policies. Similarly, the new employer might make statements about the purpose of hiring the new employee, why other potential employees were rejected, or the nature of the duties the new employee will be required to perform. Based on evidence of such actions or statements, a court is likely to protect trade secrets by enjoining prospectively their wrongful use or disclosure. In the Courtroom However, in most situations, direct evidence concerning the likelihood of misappropriation does not exist. In such cases, a trade secret owner can present circumstantial evidence to demonstrate that the unauthorized use or disclosure of trade secrets is imminently threatened. Circumstantial evidence demonstrating that imminent misappropriation is likely to occur consists of two types: (1) evidence demonstrating the intent of a party to elicit the wrongful disclosure of the trade secret, and (2) evidence demonstrating that the wrongful disclosure or use of a trade secret is inevitable regardless of any party’s intentions. Evidence demonstrating the intent of the new employer to elicit trade secrets from its new employee takes many forms. Often, a trade secret owner can show that the new employer desires the trade secret and has unsuccessfully attempted to acquire the trade secret information by proper means, either from the trade secret owner, other parties, or independent derivation or reverse engineering. For example, in Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp. , 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13848, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendants were misappropriating trade secrets in violation of a nondisclosure agreement. As evidence of this violation, the plaintiffs showed that the defendants tried unsuccessfully to reverse engineer the trade secret-protected software. That evidence, interalia, was sufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment. The new employer’s intent to misappropriate trade secrets can also be demonstrated by showing that the new employer solicited the trade secret owner’s employees and has not made any efforts to solicit employees from the industry in general. Other facts, such as access to a common supplier, access to a former consultant, or failed prior attempts to duplicate technology can also contribute to a circumstantial showing of intent. Second, in addition to circumstantial evidence demonstrating an intention to elicit improper disclosure of trade secrets, a trade secret owner can show that such disclosure is inevitable by virtue of the particular circumstances of the situation. This showing is most frequently demonstrated by evidence that the work to be performed by the former employee is very similar to the work previously performed for the trade secret owner, and that the former employee will be unable to perform the new job conscientiously without revealing trade secrets previously learned. Although circumstantial evidence is generally not considered as strong as direct evidence, it is clear that courts will issue injunctions prohibiting the misappropriation of trade secrets based solely on circumstantial evidence that indicates such activity is imminently likely to occur. For example, in PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond , 54 F.3d 1262, the defendant moved from a senior position at PepsiCo to a position at rival Quaker Oats Company (then owner of the Gatorade brand, which is now owned by Pepsi). The court held that it was proper for the district court to conclude that based on the defendant’s access to Pepsi’s trade secrets, it was inevitable as part of the defendant’s new employment that the trade secrets would be relied on. The district court concluded that unless the defendant possessed “an uncanny ability to compartmentalize information,” he would necessarily make decisions for the new employer by relying on the trade secrets. This was true even though there was no direct evidence that Redmond disclosed any of Pepsi’s trade secrets. Act Fast A trade secret owner who suspects that either actual or threatened misappropriation has occurred or is likely to occur must act promptly to enforce their legal rights. Although the statute of limitations under the UTSA is three years, courts have the power to deny the relief requested by trade secret owners even when an action has been initiated within the statute of limitations period, if the action has not been initiated reasonably promptly. The UTSA assumes that a trade secret owner who suspects misappropriation will move with reasonable alacrity to protect intellectual property, and recognizes that if such action is not taken, then third parties may materially change their positions in a good-faith belief that no trade secret rights have been violated. Under such circumstances, a court may find that the trade secret owner has been estopped from exercising, or waived their right to seek protection under the UTSA. These principles essentially allow the court to find that even though the information that a party seeks to protect meets the requirements of a trade secret, equity demands that the information not be protected as a trade secret because protecting it would harm a third party. See Watermark Solid Surface, Inc. v. Sta-Care, Inc. , 2009 WL 723199 (W.D. Wis. 2009) (discussing waiver of trade secret protection); Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 766 F.Supp. 670 (C.D. Ill. 1991) (outlining common equitable defenses in trade secrets cases).

Business


Remedies Available for the Misappropriation of Trade Secrets (credit: Joe Ravi via Wikimedia Commons / CC BY SA 3.0) Learning Objectives After completing this section, you will be able to Describe how injunctions are used to enjoin actual and threatened misappropriations of trade secrets. Explain how remedies are awarded under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The UTSA provides a full array of remedies, including statutory damages , injunctive relief , attorneys’ fees , and exemplary damages . See Unif. Trade Secrets Act §§ 2-5, U.L.A (1985). The remedy or remedies will depend on the extent of trade secrets involved, the manner of misappropriation or conversion, and the type of damage sustained by the owner. Injunctive Relief As discussed above, under the UTSA, injunctive relief is available to enjoin actual, as well as threatened, misappropriation. Injunctive relief allows the owner of a trade secret to obtain a court order prohibiting the actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret. The ability to enjoin threatened misappropriation is very important because it enables the owner of the trade secret to prevent public disclosure of the trade secret. Standard Brands, Inc. v. Zumpe , 264 F. Supp. 254, 269 (E.D. La. 1967). Injunctive relief may take many forms. The scope of an injunction may vary from a broad prohibition on any use of material found to be a trade secret, to a more limited prohibition on the scope of an employee’s work with a new employer. See 3M v. Pribyl , 259 F.3d 587, 598 (7th Cir 2001) (upholding broad injunction on use of material in employee handbook, as overly specific injunctions may invite evasion). Both the scope and subject matter of an injunction vary depending upon the specific facts of the case and the nature of the trade secret in question. The UTSA provides that an injunction shall terminate once the trade secret ceases to exist, but may be continued for a reasonable period of time to extinguish any commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation. This is especially important where, at the time of the action, the information or knowledge is no longer a trade secret. In such a case, the court may still award the owner injunctive relief that is narrowly crafted to deprive the defendant of the benefit of time saved by improper use of the owner’s trade secret. See Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Associates , 278 N.W.2d 81 (Minn. 1979). Injunctive Relief Definition Injunctive relief allows the owner of a trade secret to legally prohibit a former employee, for example, from misappropriating, publicly disclosing, or otherwise profiting from knowledge of the trade secret. Scope The scope of an injunction varies based on the on the nature of the potential misappropriator’s knowledge of the trade secret, and on the potential competitive advantage that knowledge might grant. Duration and Termination The duration of an injunction is determined based on the amount of time it would take a competitor to reveal the trade secret by proper means. An injunction can be terminated when the trade secret ceases to exist. Permanent Injunctions To determine the appropriate length of time, courts may rely on the opinions/experience of experts and competitors. They may impose permanent injunctions or rely on other considerations seen as important by the court. Where the information has not been publicly disclosed, the issue becomes more difficult. The duration of the injunction is often calculated according to the time that would be required for independent development of the information or knowledge that was misappropriated. These “head start” injunctions assume that the information could be properly obtained through reverse engineering or independent development. See, e.g., Surgidev Corp. v. Eye Technology, Inc. , 828 F.2d 452, 456-457 (8th Cir. 1987) (affirming 15-month injunction based on the period of time that would be required for independent development of the protected information). To determine what length of time is appropriate, courts may rely on the opinions of experts and the experience of other competitors. See, Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition Section 44, comment f. However, a court may also opt to impose a permanent injunction that can later be modified, or in some circumstance rely on other considerations deemed important by the court. See e.g., General Electric Co. v. Sung , 843 F. Supp. 776, 780-781 (D. Mass. 1994) (seven-year product injunction, taking into account the willfulness of the misappropriation). Courts also exhibit broad flexibility in the nature and duration of relief in cases dealing with former employees. When an injunction is issued in these cases, it usually will not be an outright ban on employment. Rather, it will be a more limited injunction for a more limited duration. See, e.g., Doubleclick v. Henderson , No. 116914/97 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 5, 1997) (granting an injunction restraining two former employees from competing with their former employer for a period of six months). Most courts are willing to allow continued employment, but will restrict the employee from working with a particular product line or area of the new employer’s business. See, Merck & Co. Inc v. Lyon , 941 F. Supp. 1443 (M.D.N.C. 1996). See also Allis Chalmers Manf. Co. v. Continental Aviation and Eng. Corp., 255 F. Supp. 645 (E.D. Mich. 1966) (injunction limited to research as to a particular type of pump); but see Union Carbide Corp. v. UGI Corp. , 731 F.2d 1186 (5th Cir. 1984) (affirming injunction against use of information in 14 broad areas). However, if the role the employee will assume would inevitably lead to the disclosure of trade secrets, the employment may be prohibited altogether. PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond , 54 F.3d 1262, 1272 (7th Cir 1995). Damages Awarded Damages are often awarded in addition to an injunction and are not an exclusive remedy. See e.g., Mikes Train House, Inc. v. Lionel, L.L.C. , 472 F.3d 398, 413-15 (6th Cir. 2006). For example, in Seagate Tech., LLC v. Western Digital Corp. , 834 N.W.2d 555 (Minn. App. 2013), the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment of $630 million in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants stemming from a trade secret misappropriation dispute. Under the UTSA, damages are measured by the actual loss caused by the misappropriation as well as any resulting unjust enrichment of the misappropriator. Where the amount of actual loss or unjust enrichment cannot be accurately calculated, the UTSA provides that damages may also be measured by the imposition of a reasonable royalty for the misappropriator’s unauthorized disclosure or use of the trade secret. Exemplary or punitive damages may be awarded where the court finds that the misappropriation was willful and malicious. See, e.g., Aries Information Sys., Inc. v. Pacific Management Sys. Corp. , 366 N.W.2d 366 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). For example, in Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t, Inc. , 801 F. Supp. 2d 950 (C.D. Cal 2011), Mattel was found to have engaged in a prolonged practice of encouraging employees to use false pretenses to acquire competitive information from the defendant. As a result of this conduct, the jury awarded, and the court affirmed a verdict of $85 million dollars in exemplary damages. A punitive or exemplary award may not exceed twice the amount of the damage award. See Unif. Trade Secrets Act § 3(b), U.L.A (1985). However, some states have modified this cap on punitive damages, and allow for punitive damages greater than two times the amount of actual damages. Reingold v. Swiftships, Inc. , 210 F.3d 320, 323 (5th Cir. 2000). Case Studies Case Description of Damages Seagate Tech., LLC v. Western Digital Corp. In this case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment of $630 million in favor of the plaintiff stemming from a trade secret misappropriation. Under the UTSA, damages are measured by the actual loss caused by the misappropriation and any resulting unjust enrichment of the misappropriator. Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t. Inc. In this case, Mattel was found to have encouraged employees to use false pretenses to acquire competitive information from the defendant. As a result of this conduct, $85 million dollars in exemplary damages was awarded. A punitive or exemplary award may not exceed twice the amount of the damage award. Reingold v. Swiftships , Inc., 210 F.3d 320, 323 (5th Cir. 2000). However, some states have modified this cap. See Unif. Trade Secrets Act § 3(b), U.L.A (1985). In exceptional circumstances, an injunction may entitle the owner of the trade secret to a royalty for the period of time during which the use of the trade secret was prohibited. For example, the Supreme Court of Georgia has affirmed a trial court’s reliance on a seldom-used provision of the UTSA to impose a “royalty injunction” instead of an injunction prohibiting the use of the plaintiff’s trade secret. See Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Heinemann , 493 S.E.2d 132 (Ga. Sup. Ct. 1997). A court may also award attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party in exceptional circumstances. A bad faith claim of misappropriation, a bad faith resistance to a motion to terminate an injunction, or a finding of willful and malicious appropriation are exceptional circumstances in which an award of attorneys’ fees may be appropriate. However, courts are generally disinclined to award attorneys’ fees. See, e.g., Gordon Employment, Inc. v. Jewe1 , 356 N.W.2d 738 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). The attorney fee provision is included to dissuade parties from filing malicious misappropriation actions in bad faith, and considered along with the need for exemplary damages. See Unif. Trade Secrets Act § 4 (comment), U.L.A(1985).

Business


Glossary Chapter 1 bargain or contract theory The premise that people will be encouraged to invent new products and services that benefit society if they are likely to profit by doing so. design patents A type of patent granted to protect new, original, and non-obvious ornamental designs for articles of manufacture. first office action A document in which the patent examiner approves, rejects, or requires additional information about the claims and/or other elements of the application. intellectual property Creations of intellect, such as inventions and artistic works. natural rights theory The premise that the product of mental labor is by all rights the property of its creator, no less than the product of physical labor is the property of its creator (or of the person who purchases it from that creator). non-obviousness A patent requirement that ensures that the idea is inventive. non-practicing entities An entity created by the Founding Fathers to expand the pool of inventors in their then-backward economy to include ordinary citizens without the wealth or resources to commercialize their own inventions. novelty A patent requirement that ensures that the idea is new. ornamentality A parent requrement that ensures that the idea is decorative. patent examiner The person who reviews the patent application to determine if the invention meets the statutory requirements for patentability. patent An intellectual property right granted by the government of a nation to an inventor that gives them the exclusive right to the invention for up to 20 years, in exchange for disclosing the details of the new technology to society for its ultimate benefit. plant patents A type of patent to protect new species of plants. The criteria is novelty, distinctiveness, and non-obviousness. utility patents The most common type of patents, which preclude others from making, using, or selling the invention during the term of the patent, which begins on the grant date and ends 20 years from the filing date (for an average of 17 to 18 years). utility A patent requirement that ensures that the idea is usable and beneficial. working requirements Regulations that forced patentees to manufacture products based on their patents within two or three years of issuance or lose their patent rights. Chapter 2 America Invents Act (AIA) A 2011 act that substantially revised the nation’s patent laws in a number of important ways. Complaint A legal document filed that sets out why the filing party believes their claim against the defendant is valid. Counterclaims New charges filed against the plaintiff. covered business methods review To review patents that claim a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service. doctrine of equivalents The legal rule that prevents an infringer from copying the essence of the invention, but making insignificant modifications in an effort to avoid infringement. estoppel Misleading your opponent into believing you would not file suit. laches Waiting an unreasonable time to make your claim. liability violation A type of violation in which you do not need to know that you are infringing a patent, or that a patent even exists, to be liable for patent infringement. Markman hearings Hearings in which parties are permitted to provide their competing arguments in briefs to the court, usually after discovery is completed, and make an oral argument on their respective positions to the court. post-grant review A trial proceeding that asks the PTO to take another look at whether the patent is valid, i.e., whether it should have been granted in the first place. royalty Money by offered the alleged infringer a license to practice your invention. Scheduling Order A specification of dates by which certain activities must be concluded, issues by the court at, or shortly after, the pretrial conference. stay A temporary suspention of a case ordered by the court. Summary Judgment a procedure that obviates a trial where one of the parties can show that its opponent cannot win—as a matter of law. venue The location for the case. willful A patent infringement in which the the accused infringer “acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent,” and the “objectively defined risk . . . was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.” Chapter 3 Berne Convention An international agreement to ensure fair and reciprocal copyright protection for member nations. Copyright Act of 1976 An act which extended copyright protection to works performed over cable TV and music performed via digital audio transmission. Creative Commons A voluntary private sector alternative to traditional copyright that coordinates the creation and consumption of content among a wide variety of individuals and institutions—all without a hint of government intervention. Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) An act which made it a crime to disseminate technology or services that could circumvent DRM measures used to control access to copyrighted movies, music, and books. It also increased penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. infringement A violation of the exclusive rights of its owner of a copyright or any other intellectual property. No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 An act which made it a criminal offense to reproduce or distribute music by electronic means (i.e., over the Internet). Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act An Act which added an additional 20 years to the term of copyright—extending it for most works to the life of the author plus 70 years after the author is deceased. Statute of Anne A 1709 copyright statute which stipulated that a copyright could be obtained by anyone, and instead of a perpetual right, the term was limited to 14 years with the right to renew for one additional 14-year term. work for hire A work prepared by an employee within the scope of their employment, or a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work. Chapter 4 Arbitrary marks Real words in common usage that have no descriptive relationship to the product or service being sold. certification marks Any word, phrase, symbol or design—or a combination of any of these—owned by one party which certifies the goods and services of others when they meet certain standards or requirements. classic fair use A condition that occurs when a trademark is used in good faith for its primary meaning, and no consumer confusion is likely to occur. collective marks Any word, phrase, symbol, or design that is owned by a cooperative, association, collective group, or organization and is used by its members to indicate the source of goods or services. descriptive mark Marks that explicitly describes the purpose, nature, or an attribute of a product or service and is therefore not eligible for trademark registration unless a secondary meaning or association has been developed in the public’s mind through usage. distinctiveness The fundamental and overriding requirement for a trademark. The requirement for distinctiveness is analogous to the requirement for novelty in patent rights and originality in copyright. Fanciful marks Invented words, symbols or devices that have no relation to the good or service being sold and have no meaning other than to distinctly identify the product or service and distinguish it in the minds of consumers from those of any other vendor. generic marks Simply the common name for the goods and services being sold. nominative fair use A condition that covers many occasions on which a party other than the trademark owner is using the mark to refer to genuine goods or services. service marks A mark with the same principle as trademarks except that these words, names, symbols, or devices identify and distinguish the source of a service. similarity So resembling another name or mark that it will be likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. spectrum of distinctiveness A spectrum of the five basic categories of marks based on how distinct they are. The marks from most to least distinct are: Fanciful, arbitrary, suggestive, descriptive, and generic. Suggestive marks Marks that suggest or imply a quality or characteristic of the goods and services being sold. They require imagination, insight, or perception on the part of the consumer as to the nature of the article. trademark dilution The weakening of a famous mark’s ability to identify and distinguish goods or services, regardless of competition in the marketplace or the likelihood of confusion. trademark An intellectual property right granted by a government to an individual, business, or legal entity that creates and uses a distinctive word, name, symbol, or device to distinguish its products or services from those from any other entity in the marketplace. Chapter 5 active disclosure A type of disclosure that might occur during a guided tour of the facility when a tour guide reveals the nature of a project or process the company is working on or has recently perfected. exemplary damages A remedy that is intended to deter the defendant and from engaging in similar conduct. injunctive relief A remedy that allows the owner of a trade secret to obtain a court order prohibiting the actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret. misappropriation Unauthorized use. passive disclosure A type of disclosure that might occur by carelessly leaving documents containing trade secrets in open view when business associates from another company visit your facility. statutory damages A remedy that is stipulated within the statute rather the degree of harm to the plaintiff. trade secret A law that requires that the intellectual property to be protected not be publicly disclosed.

Business


Przedmowa Podręcznik Makroekonomia – podstawy powstał po to, by bezpłatnie udostępnić studentom materiały dydaktyczne spełniające najwyższe standardy akademickie. Jest adaptacją podręcznika Principles of Macroeconomics 3e stworzonego przez OpenStax, fundację non-profit działającą przy Rice University w Stanach Zjednoczonych. Został wydany w 2023 roku przez OpenStax Polska, fundację non-profit z siedzibą w Warszawie. O podręczniku Makroekonomia – podstawy Wierzymy, że przyszłość edukacji to swobodny i wygodny dostęp do najlepszych treści, równy dla wszystkich. Fundacja OpenStax Poland wspólnie z fundacją OpenStax realizują tę misję, tworząc wysokiej jakości podręczniki i udostępniając je studentom i wykładowcom. W ramach projektu opublikowano w języku polskim trzytomowy podręcznik Fizyka dla szkół wyższych (2018), jednotomową Psychologię (2020) oraz Mikroekonomię – podstawy . Makroekonomia – podstawy to polska adaptacja podręcznika Principles of Macroeconomics 3e wydanego przez OpenStax. Dzięki modyfikacjom wprowadzonym przez polski zespół redakcyjny jest to jeden z najbardziej aktualnych podręczników do makroekonomii na polskim rynku. Publikacja przygotowana została przez OpenStax Poland we współpracy z wykładowcami: Szkoły Głównej Handlowej w Warszawie, Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu, Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach, Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, Akademii Leona Koźmińskiego, Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego oraz Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Publikacja jest odpowiedzią na rosnące zapotrzebowanie na treści mające wysokie walory dydaktyczne, a zarazem atrakcyjne dla współczesnych studentów i dostępne online bez żadnych opłat. Podręcznik został wydany na otwartej licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 4.0 Międzynarodowe (CC BY 4.0). Gwarantuje ona całkowicie bezpłatne użytkowanie i niemal nieograniczone możliwości korzystania z publikacji: wolny dostęp, swobodne pobieranie i przekazywanie pliku PDF oraz legalne modyfikowanie kopii – zarówno tekstu, jak i ilustracji. Jeśli więc zamierzacie Państwo wykorzystać fragmenty publikacji np. do przygotowania własnych materiałów dydaktycznych, nie ma ku temu żadnych przeszkód prawnych ani technicznych. Jedynym warunkiem jest powołanie się na źródło: Makroekonomia – podstawy , OpenStax Poland, 2023, www.openstax.pl. Podręcznik jest dostępny w wersji cyfrowej (online oraz w pliku PDF) na stronie www.openstax.pl. Podziękowania W pracę nad polskim wydaniem podręcznika zaangażowanych było 13 dydaktyków akademickich, korekta oraz redaktor językowy. Składamy serdeczne podziękowania wszystkim, którzy brali udział w tworzeniu tego otwartego podręcznika. W szczególności chcielibyśmy wyróżnić współpracowników, których udział był szczególnie znaczący. Są to: dr Piotr Maszczyk, Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie dr Bożena Horbaczewska, Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie dr Krystian Jaworski, Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie prof. dr hab. Mariusz Próchniak, Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie Adaptacja podręcznika została sfinansowana z grantu przekazanego przez White Star Education Foundation. Serdecznie dziękujemy. Modyfikacje względem podręcznika Principles of Macroeconomics 3e Podręcznik Makroekonomia – podstawy , podobnie jak Principles of Macroeconomics 3e , przeznaczony jest do trwających jeden semestr zajęć z podstaw makroekonomii. Treść dopasowano pod względem zakresu i układu do praktyki dydaktycznej większości uczelni prowadzących takie zajęcia. Niniejsza publikacja pomoże studentom poznać najważniejsze zagadnienia z dziedziny makroekonomii. Publikacja została dostosowana do standardów nauczania przedmiotu na polskich uczelniach. Polskie wydanie jest zaadaptowane kulturowo. Ponadto, ze względu na różnorodność terminologii z zakresu makroekonomii obowiązującej na polskich uczelniach, we współpracy z dydaktykami z wymienionych wyżej dziewięciu uczelni wprowadziliśmy synonimy terminów w sekcji Kluczowe pojęcia na końcu każdego rozdziału. Zabieg ten sprawia, że podręcznik jest uniwersalny i odnajdzie się w nim student każdej uczelni w Polsce. Dla jasności przekazu i wygody studentów w obecnym wydaniu nie zostały natomiast uwzględnione te zagadnienia z Principles of Macroeconomics 3e, które na polskich uczelniach zwyczajowo są prowadzone na kursie mikroekonomii. Te treści znajdziesz w publikacji Mikroekonomia – podstawy. Zakres materiału Zakres wiedzy prezentowanej w podręczniku Makroekonomia – podstawy został dopasowany do typowych zajęć akademickich z makroekonomii ogólnej prowadzonych przez jeden semestr. Naszym celem było zaprezentowanie makroekonomii jako dziedziny ciekawej i przystępnej, a poruszane zagadnienia staraliśmy się obrazować życiowymi przykładami. Publikacja zawiera następujące rozdziały: Rozdział 1. Wstęp do makroekonomii Rozdział 2. Wzrost gospodarczy Rozdział 3. Bezrobocie Rozdział 4. Inflacja Rozdział 5. Handel zagraniczny i przepływy kapitałowe Rozdział 6. Makroekonomiczne krzywe popytu i podaży Rozdział 7. Model keynesowski Rozdział 8. Model neoklasyczny Rozdział 9. Pieniądz i system bankowy Rozdział 10. Bank centralny i polityka monetarna Rozdział 11. Bilans płatniczy i kursy walutowe Rozdział 12. Polityka fiskalna Rozdział 13. Wpływ polityki fiskalnej na gospodarkę Rozdział 14. Ekonomia rozwoju - zróżnicowanie polityki ekonomicznej na świecie Rozdział 15. Teoria handlu międzynarodowego Rozdział 16. Globalizacja i protekcjonizm Funkcje dydaktyczne Struktura podręcznika została przygotowana w sposób mający zachęcić czytelnika do aktywnego przetwarzania wiedzy. Każdy rozdział zawiera dodatkowe informacje przedstawione w czterech typach ramek: Do przemyślenia. Krótka analiza przypadku. Przedstawione w niej odniesienia do rzeczywistych zdarzeń pozwalają pokazać praktyczne zastosowanie wiedzy prezentowanej w rozdziale. Treść analizy przypadku jest rozbita na dwa elementy: na początku i na końcu każdego rozdziału. Pierwsza część wprowadza czytelnika do omawianego zagadnienia, a druga jest podsumowaniem analizy przypadku z wykorzystaniem wiedzy przedstawionej w rozdziale. Krok po kroku. Prowadzi czytelnika krok po kroku przez kolejne etapy rozwiązywania konkretnego problemu analitycznego albo obliczeniowego. Poznaj szczegóły. Mierzy się z popularnymi wśród studentów nieporozumieniami związanymi z wprowadzanym tematem. Zazwyczaj treść ramki jest pogłębieniem zagadnień z głównego tekstu. Sięgnij po więcej. Prowadzi do źródeł zewnętrznych, takich jak popularne artykuły prasowe i materiały wideo, które mają nadać omawianemu zagadnieniu ciekawy kontekst i osadzić problem w realiach. Efektywne uczenie się i weryfikacja wiedzy Na końcu każdego rozdziału zamieszczone są zagadnienia do samodzielnej pracy. Pytania sprawdzające. Ćwiczenia mające ułatwić samodzielne sprawdzenie wiedzy i motywujące studenta do rozważań wykraczających poza zagadnienia wprowadzone w rozdziale. Rozwiązania do zadań znajdują się w osobnej sekcji na końcu książki. Sprawdź wiedzę. Nieskomplikowane pytania otwarte z wiedzy zawartej w rozdziale. Ćwicz myślenie krytyczne. Pytania koncepcyjne, w których czytelnik może sprawdzić rozumienie zagadnienia, stosując pozyskaną wiedzę w różnych kontekstach. Wymagają pogłębionej analizy, mają sprowokować do nieszablonowych rozważań. Problemy. Zadania dodatkowo sprawdzające wiedzę i umiejętności analityczne i obliczeniowe dotyczące wprowadzanych w rozdziale zagadnień. Zasoby dla studentów i wykładowców Na stronie OpenStax.org można znaleźć materiały dodatkowe w języku angielskim, przeznaczone zarówno dla studentów, jak i wykładowców — między innymi przewodniki użytkownika, slajdy dla prowadzących zajęcia i studentów. Aby uzyskać dostęp do materiałów dla wykładowców, należy posiadać zweryfikowane konto wykładowcy, o które można poprosić przy logowaniu na OpenStax.org. Zasoby te są dopasowane do podręcznika Principles of Macroeconomics 3e . Format Podręcznik jest dostępny za darmo online oraz w dokumencie PDF za pośrednictwem strony OpenStax.pl. Zgłaszanie błędów Wszystkie podręczniki OpenStax Poland przechodzą rygorystyczny proces recenzji. Mimo to niektóre błędy mogły zostać przeoczone, co zdarza się w każdej profesjonalnej publikacji. Nasze książki są cyfrowe, dlatego możemy je uaktualniać, gdy zachodzi taka potrzeba. By zaproponować poprawkę, prosimy skorzystać z odnośnika na stronach podręcznika na OpenStax.pl oraz OpenStax.org. Zgłoszone poprawki są analizowane przez ekspertów i wprowadzane do publikacji przez zespół redakcyjny. Twórcy podręcznika Autorzy David Shapiro, Pennsylvania State University , profesor emerytowany na Wydziale Ekonomii, Demografii oraz Studiów nad Tematyką Kobiecości, Gender i Seksualności na University of Michigan . Obronił licencjat z Nauk politycznych i ekonomicznych na University of Michigan oraz dyplom i doktorat Nauk Ekonomicznych na Princeton University. Karierę akademicką rozpoczął w 1971 r. na Ohio State University , gdzie zajmował się badaniami kobiet i młodzieży na rynku pracy w USA. W latach 1978–1979 jako stypendysta Fulbrighta na Uniwersytecie w Kinszasie w Demokratycznej Republice Konga prowadził badania nad edukacją, zatrudnieniem i zachowaniami reprodukcyjnymi kobiet w Kinszasie, a później poszerzył zakres badań na cały region subsaharyjski. Shapiro zdobył najwyższe nagrody dla dydaktyków zarówno w Ohio State jak i Penn State . Daniel MacDonald, California State University, San Bernardino , jest profesorem i kierownikiem Wydziału Ekonomii na California State University w San Bernardino. W 2013 r. obronił doktorat na University of Massachusetts Amherst . MacDonald prowadzi badania w dziedzinie ekonomii pracy, polityki publicznej (mieszkalnictwa) i historii doradztwa ekonomicznego w USA. Jest także autorem tygodnika Inland Empire Economic Update . Steven A. Greenlaw, University of Mary Washington Steven Greenlaw wykłada podstawy ekonomii od ponad 30 lat. w 1999 r. działalność dydaktyczna Greenlawa została wyróżniona przez jego macierzystą uczelnię nagrodą Grelleta C. Simpsona za Doskonałość w Nauczaniu Akademickim . Jest autorem Doing Economics: A Guide to Doing and Understanding Economic Research (Jak robić ekonomię: przewodnik po prowadzeniu badań) oraz artykułów o dydaktyce ekonomii m.in. w Journal of Economic Education , International Review of Economic Education . Greenlaw napisał także moduł Quantitative Writing for Starting Point: Teaching and Learning Economics opublikowany w portalu poświęconym najlepszym praktykom nauczania ekonomii. Mieszka w Alexandrii w stanie Wirginia w USA, razem z żoną Kathy mają troje dzieci. Redakcja naukowa polskiego wydania: dr Piotr Maszczyk, prodziekan Studium Magisterskiego Szkoły Głównej Handlowej w Warszawie oraz kierownik Zakładu Makroekonomii i Ekonomii Sektora Publicznego w Kolegium Gospodarki Światowej. Autor i współautor blisko 50 artykułów i opracowań naukowych z obszarów teorii ekonomii, ekonomii instytucjonalnej i transformacji ustrojowej w Europie Środkowej i Wschodniej, a także licznych ekspertyz. Posiada ponaddwudziestoletnie doświadczenie dydaktyczne na studiach licencjackich, magisterskich, doktorskich i podyplomowych, potwierdzone licznymi nagrodami przyznanymi zarówno przez JM Rektora SGH, jak i samych studentów, o czym świadczy dwukrotne wyróżnienie studencką nagrodą Inspiracja Roku. Maszczyk jest także laureatem Nagrody Ministra Nauki i Edukacji. Pracował także w Ministerstwie Finansów i Ministerstwie Rozwoju Regionalnego w randze radcy ministra. Jest stałym komentatorem ekonomicznym radia Tok FM i RdC. Tłumaczenia: dr Bożena Horbaczewska, Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie (rozdziały: Wzrost gospodarczy, Bezrobocie, Inflacja, Handel zagraniczny i przepływy kapitałowe, Pieniądz i system bankowy, Bank centralny i polityka monetarna, Dodatek Model dochodowo-wydatkowy); dr Krystian Jaworski, Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie (rozdziały: Ekonomia rozwoju - zróżnicowanie polityki ekonomicznej na świecie, Teoria handlu międzynarodowego, Globalizacja i protekcjonizm; prof. dr hab. Mariusz Próchniak, Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie (rozdziały: Wstęp do makroekonomii, Makroekonomiczne krzywe popytu i podaży, Model keynesowski, Model neoklasyczny, Bilans płatniczy i kursy walutowe, Polityka fiskalna, Wpływ polityki fiskalnej na gospodarkę, Dodatek Matematyka zastosowana w tym podręczniku). Recenzje naukowe polskiego wydania: dr hab. Rafał Wisła, prof. Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, prof. dr hab. Krzysztof Malaga, Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Poznaniu, dr hab. Dominika Bochańczyk-Kupka, prof. Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach, dr Magdalena Stawicka, Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny we Wrocławiu, dr hab. Wojciech Bizon, prof. Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, dr hab. Piotr Krajewski, prof. Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, dr hab. Jacek Tomkiewicz, prof. Akademii Leona Koźmińskiego, dr hab. Bartosz Jóźwik, prof. Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, dr hab. Jan Hagemejer, prof. Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Redakcja językowa: Sławomir Borkowski Korekta językowa: Marta Jakubowska, Słowa na warsztat agencja językowa Okładka i ilustracje: M. Sztuka Wsparcie redakcji: M. Sztuka Zespół redakcyjny Principles of Macroeconomics 3e Prowadzenie redakcji: Thomas Sigel Współautorstwo: Eric Dodge, Hanover College; Cynthia Gamez, University of Texas at El Paso; Andres Jauregui, Columbus State University; Diane Keenan, Cerritos College; Dan MacDonald, California State University, San Bernardino; Amyaz Moledina, The College of Wooster; Craig Richardson, Winston-Salem State University; Ralph Sonenshine, American University Recenzje naukowe: Bryan Aguiar, Northwest Arkansas Community College; Basil Al Hashimi, Mesa Community College; Jennifer Ball, Washburn University; Emil Berendt, Mount St. Mary's University; Zena Buser, Adams State University; Douglas Campbell, The University of Memphis; Sanjukta Chaudhuri, University of Wisconsin-Eau; Claire Xueyu Cheng, Alabama State University; Robert Cunningham, Alma College; Rosa Lea Danielson, College of DuPage; Steven Deloach, Elon University; Debbie Evercloud, University of Colorado Denver; Sal Figueras, Hudson County Community College; Reza Ghorashi, Stockton University; Robert Gillette, University of Kentucky; George Jones, University of Wisconsin-Rock County; Charles Kroncke, College of Mount St. Joseph; Teresa Laughlin, Palomar Community College; Carlos Liard-Muriente, Central Connecticut State University; Heather Luea, Kansas State University; Charles Meyrick, Housatonic Community College; William Mosher, Nashua Community College; Michael Netta, Hudson County Community College; Nick Noble, Miami University; Joe Nowakowski, Muskingum University; Shawn Osell, University of Wisconsin, Superior; Mark Owens, Middle Tennessee State University; Sonia Pereira, Barnard College; Brian Peterson, Central College; Jennifer Platania, Elon University; Robert Rycroft, University of Mary Washington; Adrienne Sachse, Florida State College at Jacksonville; Hans Schumann, Texas A&M University; Gina Shamshak, Goucher College; Chris Warburton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY; Mark Witte, Northwestern University.

Business


Wprowadzenie do rozdziału Wielki Kryzys Czasami łatwo jest ocenić kondycję gospodarki – na przykład wtedy, gdy wielu ludziom trudności sprawia najzwyklejsze związanie końca z końcem. To zdjęcie przedstawia Amerykanów stojących w kolejce po zapomogi wypłacane przez władze w czasie Wielkiego Kryzysu (1929–1933). Natomiast gdy jednym wiedzie się coraz lepiej, a sytuacja innych wciąż się pogarsza, określenie faktycznego stanu gospodarki jest trudniejsze. (Źródło: modyfikacja pracy z Biblioteki Kongresu/Wikimedia Commons). Jaka jest kondycja gospodarki? Jak możemy ją ocenić? Lata 90. XX w. w USA były okresem boomu gospodarczego. Podobnie w Polsce czas niezwykle korzystnej koniunktury przypadł na lata 1994–2000. Dla odmiany na przełomie pierwszej i drugiej dekady XXI w., a dokładniej w latach 2007–2014, kondycja zarówno gospodarki amerykańskiej, jak i polskiej nie zachwycała. Co sprawia, że gospodarka rośnie albo się kurczy? Jakie czynniki decydują o tempie tych zmian? Dlaczego przedsiębiorstwa upadają, mimo że podejmują racjonalne decyzje biznesowe? Dlaczego pracownicy tracą pracę nawet jeśli ciężko i wydajnie pracują? Czy okresy złej koniunktury to dowód na zawodność systemu rynkowego? A może na niesprawność państwa? Przywołane wyżej pytania wchodzą w zakres rozważań makroekonomii. W niniejszym rozdziale spróbujemy udzielić na nie przynajmniej wstępnej odpowiedzi. Zapewne nie wszystkie kwestie uda się wyczerpująco objaśnić, ale zaczniemy od podstaw, czyli tego, jak należy rozumieć kondycję gospodarki i jak możemy ją mierzyć. Makroekonomia jako nauka i sposób opisu gospodarki, w odróżnieniu od mikroekonomii, analizuje łącznie wszystkie transakcje kupna i sprzedaży w danej gospodarce krajowej, niezależnie od tego, co jest produkowane oraz kto zajmuje się wytwarzaniem i zakupami dóbr czy usług. Innymi słowy, makroekonomia obejmuje swoim zainteresowaniem wszystkie akty wymiany dokonywane na każdym rynku funkcjonującym w danej gospodarce. Nie rozdziela ich jednak, analizując wszystkie rynki łącznie. Ale czy tak gigantyczną liczbę transakcji da się w ogóle badać? Próby zmierzenia się z tym problemem zostały podjęte już podczas Wielkiego Kryzysu, ponad 90 lat temu. Prezydent Stanów Zjednoczonych Franklin D. Roosevelt i jego doradcy ekonomiczni oczywiście zdawali sobie sprawę z tego, że ówczesna sytuacja gospodarcza w USA była zła. Ale czy mogli dokładnie zmierzyć ów stan i tym samym określić, jak bardzo zła? Ekonomista Simon Kuznets, który później otrzymał Nagrodę Banku Szwecji im. Alfreda Nobla w dziedzinie nauk ekonomicznych (w 1971 r.), opracował narzędzie (produkt krajowy brutto – PKB), które pozwoliło zmierzyć łączną wartość wytworzonej i sprzedanej produkcji w amerykańskiej gospodarce. W tym rozdziale poznasz sposób obliczania PKB i możliwości wykorzystania tego agregatu oraz dowiesz się, dlaczego jest on kluczową kategorią makroekonomiczną. Wprowadzenie do rozdziału Dzięki lekturze tego rozdziału dowiesz się: Jak oszacować rozmiary gospodarki za pomocą produktu krajowego brutto (PKB) W jaki sposób przekształcić zmienne nominalne na zmienne realne Jak wyznaczyć ścieżkę zmian realnego PKB w czasie W jaki sposób poprawnie porównywać kraje pod względem poziomu PKB Jakie są wady i zalety PKB jako miernika poziomu społecznego dobrobytu Makroekonomia zajmuje się gospodarką jako całością (pomija preferencje jednostek i to, co się dzieje na konkretnych rynkach oraz w przedsiębiorstwach), jak również zależnościami między gospodarkami różnych krajów. Jakie są przyczyny spadku poziomu PKB (recesji) lub gwałtownego spowolnienia tempa wzrostu tego wskaźnika? Dlaczego bezrobocie utrzymuje się na wysokim poziomie nawet po zakończeniu okresu niekorzystnej koniunktury? Dlaczego niektóre kraje rozwijają się (ich PKB rośnie) szybciej niż inne? Dlaczego w jednych państwach poziom życia jest wyższy niż w innych? Na wszystkie te pytania próbuje odpowiedzieć makroekonomia. Aby tego dokonać, agreguje aktywność gospodarczą wszystkich gospodarstw domowych i przedsiębiorstw na wszystkich rynkach, ustalając wielkości łącznego popytu i łącznej podaży w gospodarce. Konsekwencje takich obliczeń są bardzo ciekawe. Niejednokrotnie zdarza się bowiem, że wyniki na poziomie makroekonomicznym nie są prostą sumą wyników na poziomie mikroekonomicznym. To, co z mikroekonomicznego punktu widzenia wydaje się rozsądne, na poziomie makroekonomicznym może mieć nieoczekiwane lub kontrproduktywne skutki. Wyobraź sobie, że jesteś uczestnikiem spektaklu z dużą liczbą widzów, np. koncertu lub meczu. W pewnym momencie kilka osób postanawia wstać, by mieć lepszy widok na to, co dzieje się na scenie lub na boisku. W ten sposób zasłaniają jednak widok innym widzom, którzy – aby cokolwiek zobaczyć – też muszą wstać. W końcu prawie wszyscy podnoszą się ze swoich miejsc, w wyniku czego nikt nie ma widoku wyraźnie lepszego niż poprzednio. Racjonalna w sumie decyzja niektórych osób (czyli na poziomie mikro) ostatecznie nic nie zmieniła w sytuacji całej zbiorowości (na poziomie makro). Przytoczony przykład nie dotyczy oczywiście obszaru zainteresowania makroekonomii, ale dobrze ilustruje relację pomiędzy ekonomicznymi decyzjami jednostek i ich konsekwencjami dla całego społeczeństwa. Makroekonomia obejmuje dość obszerny zakres problemów. Jak sobie z nim poradzimy? pokazuje nasze podejście do kwestii pozostających w obszarze zainteresowania makroekonomii. Będziemy je analizować z trzech różnych perspektyw: Jakie są cele gospodarowania? Jakie modele mogą zastosować ekonomiści do analizy całej gospodarki? Jakie narzędzia z zakresu polityki gospodarczej może wykorzystać państwo, aby wpływać na procesy gospodarowania? Cele gospodarowania, modele makroekonomiczne i polityka państwa W zielonej ramce pokazane są najważniejsze cele gospodarowania. Ramka niebieska przedstawia wybrane modele stosowane przez ekonomistów do analiz makroekonomicznych (np. w zakresie inflacji lub tempa i kierunku zmian PKB). W żółtej ramce z kolei przedstawione są dwa przykłady polityk gospodarczych państwa. Cele gospodarowania Myśląc o ogólnej kondycji gospodarki, warto wziąć pod uwagę trzy podstawowe cele gospodarowania: wzrost gospodarczy, niskie bezrobocie i niską inflację. Wzrost gospodarczy wpływa na poprawę poziomu życia w danym kraju. Ekonomiści mierzą wzrost gospodarczy jako procentową zmianę realnego (skorygowanego o inflację) produktu krajowego brutto w danym okresie. W krajach rozwiniętych tempo wzrostu gospodarczego przekraczające 3% rocznie jest uważane za absolutnie zadowalające, jakkolwiek w Polsce, która próbuje dogonić najbogatsze kraje globu pod względem standardu życia, satysfakcję budzi dopiero dynamika wzrostu PKB na poziomie 4,5–5,0%. Bezrobocie mierzone jest relacją osób pozostających bez pracy w stosunku do całej siły roboczej, czyli stopą bezrobocia (pojęcia te zostaną dokładnie objaśnione w kolejnych rozdziałach podręcznika). Kiedy ludzie nie pracują, gospodarka marnuje cenne zasoby, co prowadzi do produkcji dóbr i usług mniejszej od możliwej. Bezrobocie to jednak coś więcej niż tylko statystyka rynku pracy – od poziomu bezrobocia zależą dochody mieszkańców. Chociaż bezrobocie w gospodarkach rynkowych prawdopodobnie nigdy całkowicie nie zniknie, ekonomiści uważają stopę bezrobocia na poziomie niższym od 5% za bardzo dobry wynik. Inflacja to wzrost ogólnego poziomu cen w gospodarce. Jest ona zwykle mierzona wskaźnikiem wzrostu cen towarów i usług konsumpcyjnych ( CPI ) (ang. consumer price index ). Jeśli ceny żywności, mieszkań i usług rosną znacznie szybciej niż płace, ludzie są niezadowoleni, bo wówczas ich poziom życia spada. Niska inflacja – w granicach 2,0–2,5% rocznie – stanowi dla gospodarki bezpieczne zjawisko. Modele makroekonomiczne Jak zapewne wiesz z zajęć poświęconych mikroekonomii, głównymi narzędziami stosowanymi przez ekonomistów są teorie i modele (by dowiedzieć się więcej, sięgnij do podręcznika „Mikroekonomia - Podstawy” . W mikroekonomii wykorzystywaliśmy model popytu i podaży. W makroekonomii posługujemy się modelem popytu globalnego ( AD ) ( popytu zagregowanego ), ( aggregate demand ) i podaży globalnej ( AS ) ( podaży zagregowanej ), ( aggregate supply ). Niniejsza książka przedstawia dwa podstawowe nurty w makroekonomii: szkołę neoklasyczną i szkołę keynesowską. Każda z nich ma własną wersję modelu AD–AS. Znając oba podejścia, łatwo zrozumiesz, jak zachowuje się gospodarka w skali makro. Polityka państwa Państwo może wpływać na gospodarkę m.in. za pomocą polityki pieniężnej lub fiskalnej. Polityka pieniężna polega na sterowaniu podażą pieniądza i stopami procentowymi. Polityka fiskalna obejmuje zmiany w wydatkach państwa i podatkach. Każdy z elementów uwzględnionych na będzie przedmiotem szczegółowych rozważań w następnych rozdziałach. Podczas tej lektury zapewne odkryjesz, że odbierając informacje przekazywane przez media, prawie codziennie stykasz się z zagadnieniami makroekonomicznymi.

Business