自主開發規劃

無論故事的主人公是公司離職的高管、還是公司的客戶或商業夥伴，故事的每次發展似乎都千篇一律：這類曾長期與公司分享機密信息的“演員”，他們跳槽後的公司發佈了與原公司類似的產品，原公司都會聲稱被盜、被背叛、被出賣，而“演員”的反應同樣強烈：“不，我是自己做的”；用法律術語來說，“我從事的是'自主開發'”。

The story seems to unfold the same way every time, whether the actor is a high-level departing employee or a customer or business partner. When sharing confidential information in a long-term relationship results in the release of a similar product by the recipient, the reaction is a claim of theft, laced with accusations of treachery and betrayal. And the response is equally strong: “no, I did this on my own”; in legal terms, “I engaged in‘independent development.’”

嚴格來說，很難證明新產品的開發是“獨立”於保密關係中獲得的信息完成的。一旦你接觸到了保密的程序或設計或其他相關信息，你如何證明你的工作完全是你自己做的？

Strictly speaking, this means that the development of the new product was accomplished “independently” of the information shared in the confidential relationship. As a practical matter, this can be difficult to prove. Once you have been exposed to the secret process or design, or other related information, how do you demonstrate that your work was entirely your own?

對於那些希望通過收購來擴大業務的公司或者對於那些對創新途徑保持開放、尋求與創新型企業建立合作，共同研發新技術的公司而言，，這都是一個特殊的難題。《華爾街日報》近期的一篇文章報道了一個系列案件，蘋果公司在與某些初創企業就iPhone和Apple Watch的相關技術進行洽談之後，卻最終選擇獨立推進這些技術項目，從而引發的一系列法律爭議。

This is a particular conundrum for companies that are looking to expand their business through acquisitions, or who respond to inquiries from an innovator interested in some sort of relationship to co-develop a new technology. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal reported on cases where Apple met with startups to look at technology related to the iPhone or Apple Watch, and the legal battles resulting from Apple’s decision to pursue those projects on its own.

大公司通常會在與小公司的協議中加入“殘留記憶條款”來保護自己免受這類訴訟。協議中除了通常的保密承諾和有限使用共享信息外，還加入了“被無意識保留的信息”的例外情況，即該信息已被融入了相關人員的記憶中。如果你覺得這是一個重要的例外條款，那就對了。實際上，簽訂帶有殘留記憶條款的協議，意味着你授權對方利用在交易過程中所記住的任何信息。

One way that a large organization can try to protect itself from these claims is to insert a“residuals clause” into the agreement with the smaller company. Alongside the usual promises of confidentiality and limited use of shared information it inserts a significant exception for information “retained in the unaided” (i.e., human) memory of the individuals who were exposed to it. If that strikes you as a significant carve-out, you’re right. In effect, by entering into an agreement with a residuals clause, you’re granting a license to the other side to use whatever they remember from the transaction.

因此，殘留記憶條款經常遭到拒絕，在此過程中，各方都會簽署一份相對標準的保密協議，同意對信息進行保密並同意僅將該信息用於評估擬議的交易。接收信息的公司可以在協議中聲明自己正在進行相關研究，從而在一定程度上降低風險。但即使有這樣的免責聲明，也會接觸到一些信息，從而給日後證明真正的自主開髮帶來挑戰。

As a result, the residuals clause is frequently refused, and the process goes forward with a more or less standard NDA in which each side agrees to maintain information in confidence and to use it only to assess the proposed deal. The receiving company may reduce its risk to some extent by declaring in the agreement that it is engaged in its own related research. But even with that sort of disclaimer, there will be exposure to information that makes it a challenge later to demonstrate truly independent development.

這樣的接觸並不僅僅發生在潛在的收購或許可中。在購買商品時也可能共享機密信息，因爲銷售條款包括對賣方設計的保護。同樣的情況也可能發生在企業軟件上，客戶雖無權訪問源代碼，但也會接觸到有關該軟件如何工作的信息，通常還要求承諾不對該軟件進行逆向工程。當然了，保密信息有時依然會在競爭對手僱傭的工程師的頭腦中閃現。

An exposure like this doesn’t only happen in the case of potential acquisitions or licenses. Confidential information can be shared in connection with purchase of a commercial product, in which the terms of sale include protection for the seller’s designs. The same might apply to enterprise software, in which the customer is not given access to underlying code, but is exposed to information about how the tool works, usually accompanied by a promise not to reverse engineer it. And of course sensitive information sometimes arrives in the head of an engineer hired from a competitor.

無論如何，“信息感染 ”或多或少都會以某種方式限制信息接收者的自由。這種限制可以用出現某種索賠的風險來衡量，也可以用接收者事實上並沒有使用其祕密接收到的信息這種強有力的證據來衡量。

However it occurs, the “information infection”[6] operates more or less automatically to constrain the recipient’s freedom in some way. That constraint can be measured by the risk that there will be some sort of claim, and by the robustness of the evidence that the recipient did not in fact use the information it received in confidence.

在商業祕密被盜用的法律爭議中，無需證明對方抄襲，關鍵的因素是“使用”。如果某方的後續開發工作受到之前獲得的機密信息的影響，或者獲得該信息只是在某種程度上加速了其開發進程，法律則對此苛以責任。此外，如果一方使用了原創者之前通過研究和資金投入所獲得的有關哪些方法無效或效果不太好的“負面祕密”，則同樣構成對商業祕密的使用，即使這些負面祕密揭示的是失敗的嘗試，它們作爲達到成功目標的基礎，往往具有不可小覷的價值。正如託馬斯•愛迪生在描述其爲了發明耐用的電燈絲所付出的努力時所言：“我並未失敗，我只是找到了一萬種行不通的方法”。

The key word here is“use.”To assert a claim of trade secret misappropriation, you don’t have to show copying. The law imposes liability if the later development was influenced, or just accelerated in some way, by access to confidential information. This includes using knowledge of the blind alleys[7] already explored by the originator who invested in research to determine what doesn’t work, or what works less well. These so-called “negative secrets” can be very valuable as a “head start” toward success. Recall that Thomas Edison, in relating his effort to invent a long-lasting filament for the light bulb, said “I haven’t failed; I’ve found 10,000 ways that won’t work.”

在涉及違反保密義務的糾紛中，原告總是負有“舉證責任”，即原告必須說服法官或陪審團其祕密被盜用。但實際上，如果被告方曾擁有對機密信息的正當訪問權限，並且此後推出了類似的產品，那麼被告方將成爲審判焦點所在，此時被告方最好講好一個有說服力的辯護“好故事”。

In a dispute over breach of confidentiality, the plaintiff always has the “burden of proof,” in the sense that it has to convince the judge or jury that its secrets were misappropriated. But as a practical matter, if the defendant had trusted access and later sold a similar product, all eyes will be on the defendant, who better have a good story to tell.

正如我們在文章開頭所指出的，這是一個“自主開發”的故事。。但是，被告該如何說服（可能持懷疑態度的）受衆相信不存在失信行爲，其開發是“乾淨的”？

That story, as we noted at the beginning, is one of “independent development.” But how does the accused convince a (potentially skeptical) audience that there was no breach of trust, that the development was “clean?”

“逆向工程的“淨室”形式被視爲黃金標準。在此原則下，你將有關某款產品的公開信息或基本規格信息交給從未接觸過祕密信息的外部開發團隊，讓他們以此爲基礎進行開發。當然，你必須確保所有參與者都是“乾淨”的，你給他們的信息不是來源於商業祕密。一旦你能做到這一點，你就贏了。

Here, the gold standard is the “clean room” form of reverse engineering, in which you start with publicly available information about a product, or a set of basic specifications for a desired product, and you hand that over to an outside team of developers who have never been exposed to the secret information. Of course, you have to be certain that all the participants are clean, and that the information you give them to start with was not derived from the trade secret. But if you can pull that off, then you should win.

問題在於，出於種種原因，真正的“淨室”往往是不切實際的：可能受限於時間或預算的限制、可能難以在需要時聚集具備合適技術專長和經驗的開發團隊、甚或因爲涉密信息被暴露的程度相對較低，使得相關風險被視爲在可控範圍內。

The problem is that a true “clean room” is often impractical for a number of reasons. There may not be enough time, or enough budget. The people with the right skills and experience may not be available when needed. Or the extent of exposure may have been so limited that the risk is viewed as acceptable.

事實上，風險評估對大多數自主開發至關重要。接觸敏感數據的公司必須明白，風險評估並不是非黑即白的，而是依賴於周到的風險管理，從建立關係並接收保密信息之初就開始實施的風險管理。考慮到需要舉證證明自主開發，信息的接收方尤需關注在被起訴時，如何保留其選擇權[8]。

Indeed, assessing the risk is key to most attempts at independent development. The company that is exposed to sensitive data has to recognize that the issue is not clean-cut, but depends on thoughtful risk management, beginning at the point when the relationship is established and the information received. Anticipating the practical burden of proving independent development, the recipient will focus on ways to preserve its options in the event of a claim.

這項工作始於交易之初。如果公司正進入一段保密義務關係，那麼合同起草時就應向另一方明確表示，如果事情沒談成，信息接收方將自行推進。對所有機密信息進行具體標註的條款（以及對口頭披露信息的及時書面確認）將有助於降低對受保護信息內容的誤解風險。

This effort begins with the originating transaction. If the company is entering into a confidential relationship, the contract should be drafted in a way that makes it clear to the other side that if things don’t work out the recipient will be forging ahead on its own. Provisions for specific marking of all confidential information (and prompt written confirmation of verbal disclosures) will help reduce the risk of misunderstanding about what the protected information consists of.

對於招聘過程中涉及的泄密風險，用人單位應明確其尊重他人知識產權的政策，並應考慮建立制度來指導新員工和與其接觸的老員工的行爲。在特殊情況下，公司可能希望通過獨立律師來爲個人提供具體的、保密的指導。

For recruiting exposure, the hiring company should make clear its policy on respecting others’ IP, and should consider establishing protocols to guide the behavior of new recruits and their new colleagues. In exceptional cases, the company may want to provide access to independent counsel to provide the individual with specific, confidential guidance.

如果沒有後續措施跟進，以確保泄露風險得到很好的管理，並且做好公司履行義務的記錄，來證明公司是如何遵守其義務的，那麼所有這些前期的行動可能都無濟於事。

All this front-loaded action may not help much without follow-up to ensure that exposure is carefully managed and that good records are kept of how the company has complied with its obligations.

那麼，在接觸了他人商業祕密的情況下，如何構建一個獨立開發路徑呢？首先要認識到這並不一定需要一個密閉的 “淨室”。即使有一名或多名接觸過敏感數據的人員參與，你也有可能“自主地”創建自己的產品或服務。但出於顯而易見的原因，你應當將這類人的工作限制在必要的範圍內。法律僅懲罰那些“實質性”的濫用行爲，而且根據具體情況，你也許可以說服法庭，那些因接觸保密信息而造成的任何影響都是微不足道的。

This brings us back to the question of how to structure a development path when there has been some exposure to someone else’s trade secrets. The answer begins with recognizing that it doesn’t necessarily require a hermetically sealed “clean room.” It is possible to create your own product or service “independently” using one or more of the people who had access to sensitive data. For obvious reasons you should limit their participation to what is necessary under the circumstances. But the law only punishes a misuse that is “substantial,” and depending on the context, you may be able to convince a court that any influence from exposure to confidential information was negligible.

成功的關鍵在於洞悉未來可能面臨的訴訟風險，並妥善保存好工作記錄。對於法官或陪審團而言，這一點顯得尤爲重要，因爲他們需要清楚地看到你的開發工作是穩健而誠實的，你必須證明，你沒有試圖通過迴避他人已完成的研究或實驗來尋求捷徑。爲了證明你的工作確實是基於你自己的獨立思考和努力，而不是僅僅依賴於從他人那裏學到的知識，你需要精心規劃你的開發路徑，就從“非同凡想”開始吧！

The key to success lies in understanding the risk of future litigation and preserving the evidence of your work. This becomes critical as context for a judge or jury to see that your development effort was robust and honest, and that you didn’t cut corners by avoiding the research or experimentation that was already done by others. To show that what you did was “independent” of what you learned from someone else, you should frame your plans accordingly. Begin by thinking different.

*本文由北京taptap点点体育官方网站國際業務專業委員會高級合夥人朱尉賢律師、陳哲遠律師審校。