Twitter's claim that Meta Platforms stole trade secrets to build its new microblogging site may be the first volley in a legal battle between the social media giants, but experts say Twitter would have to clear a high hurdle if it sues.
In a letter sent on Wednesday, Twitter alleged that Meta
used its trade secrets to develop its new social media platform, Threads, and
demanded that it stop using the information. Twitter said that Meta had hired
dozens of former Twitter employees, many of whom "improperly
retained" devices and documents from the company, and said Meta
"deliberately" assigned them to work on Threads.
It was unclear whether any lawsuit would be filed.
A spokesperson for Twitter did not immediately reply to a
request for comment. Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said in a Threads post on
Thursday that no one on the site's engineering team is a former Twitter
employee.
Legal experts said that while many companies have accused
competitors that hired former employees and have a similar product of stealing
trade secrets, the cases are difficult to prove.
To win, a company needs to show its competitor took
information that was economically valuable and which the company had taken
"reasonable efforts" to keep secret, said Polk Wagner, a law
professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
But the question of what constitutes a "reasonable
effort" can be tricky, he said.
"The courts are pretty clear that you can't just wave
your hands and say something is a trade secret. On the other hand, you don't
have to lock everything down so much that nobody can use the information,"
Wagner said.
Designating 'secrets'
Meta launched Threads on Wednesday in what could be the
first real threat to Twitter, which has alienated many users and advertisers
since billionaire Elon Musk bought the microblogging site last year.
Threads shares some resemblance to Twitter, as do the
numerous other social media sites that have cropped up in the last several
months.
One element courts look at is whether a company made clear
to employees that the specific information at issue was a trade secret.
Sharon Sandeen, a professor at Mitchell Hamline School of
Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, said that companies have lost trade-secret cases
when they claimed that employees were bound by broad agreements designating all
the company's information as confidential.
Courts have said that employees have no way of knowing from
such sweeping language what is and is not confidential, she said.
Companies often bring trade-secret cases only to find their
claims are not as strong as they thought, experts said.
Sandeen pointed to the high-profile legal battle between
Alphabet's Waymo self-driving vehicle unit and ride-share company Uber
Technologies. The case began with allegations of thousands of stolen documents,
and ended with a dispute over a small handful, she said.
Uber settled the case on the eve of trial for $245 million worth
of its own shares.
While trials are rare in trade-secret cases, settlements are
common, said Wagner.
"The incentives to settle in these sorts of cases are
especially strong because nobody wants the secrets being discussed more than
necessary," he said. © Reuters
0 comments:
Post a Comment