The true jurisprudence issued by the supreme people's procuratorate (typical case iii on intellectual property protection) sounded alarm bells for all engineers and manufacturing enterprises。
The author of the case, shenyang mechanistics, inc., is a subsidiary of shen group, inc. (hereinafter referred to as the shen group) and possesses mature windmills, compressor core production techniques, and related drawings, selected software and technical data. As an on-the-job technician for a company belonging to the shen group, a formal confidentiality agreement has been signed with the express knowledge that the company's technology is strictly prohibited。
Centrifugal compressors (photos not directly related to the case, for information only)
In order to rapidly improve production capacity, take advantage of the market and save the cost of self-research and development, the company's deputy director-general for marketing, ying myung, bribed the company's deputy director-general for marketing to collaborate with the inside and outside of the country. For five years, from january 2015 to august 2020, zhu pieng violated his confidentiality agreement and violated the use of proprietary software to steal the core drawings and technical parameters of the drum by misappropriation of his colleagues ' accounts and access to the enterprise's internal encryption system。
When the information he obtained was used directly or simply modified, it was sent on a continuous basis to the technical staff of a bipartite windmill company, ying yi, which was used in bulk production in the enterprise. It has been established that a two-way windmill company has produced 17 windmills and sold them to the outside world in full compliance with the stolen and secret technology. The individual zhu has accumulated $2. 11 million in illicit profits, and this malicious theft has directly caused economic losses of more than $6. 5 million to the group of originals。
The forensics confirmed that the core technology of the product involved was identical to that of a group of individuals involved in the case, and that the two companies did not have their own technology selection, r & d and production capacity, and that the volume of production was entirely dependent on stolen commercial secrets。
Large windmills (photos not directly related to the case, for reference only)
In addition, the defendant's unit entered into a supply contract with an uninformed third-party enterprise, which, as equipment could not be properly performed as it was seized, affected the normal advancement of a national priority project taken over by the downstream enterprise. After having been fully substantiated and substantiated, the case officers facilitated a settlement of compensation between the parties and recommended that the equipment be released. This has resulted in accountability for violations and has not affected normal production and project advancement。
In november 2021, the court handed down a final judgement: a fine of $0. 6 million was imposed for the offence of violating commercial secrets, and the three persons involved were sentenced to prison terms ranging from one year and six months to three years, all with suspended sentences and a fine ranging from $100,000 to $200,000. There was no appeal and the judgement entered into force。
By writing here, there may be a mistaken assumption that the three persons involved were suspended sentences and were not imprisoned, which was a “light penalty”. But in fact, this is typical of a light and costly situation. According to the law, in this case, $2. 11 million of illegal profits are the proceeds of an offence, which must be paid in full, with an additional high fine, while leaving a permanent criminal record and a complete breakdown of the career, employment and political future。
This classic case of supreme scrutiny clearly conveys a clear legal orientation: commercial secrets do not have “submarine rules of trade”, internal and external collusion in the theft of drawings, theft techniques and the exploitation of insiders are no longer simple industry violations, but rather criminal offences that touch the red line of criminal law. Not only are the persons directly involved in the offence subject to prosecution, but companies that dominate the proceeds of theft and abuse are also recognized as unit offences and liable for legal liability。
Technical practitioners should be more at the bottom of the profession, abandoning it, and technical skills are the bottom of the profession. They are no means of personal gain. They touch the red line of commercial secrecy and end up losing everything. What do you think about this case? Welcome to comment section
