Go to the content. | Move to the navigation | Go to the site search | Go to the menu | Contacts | Accessibility

| Create Account

Pisani, Federico (2019) Knowledge workers management. Concorrenza e invenzioni nel rapporto di lavoro subordinato: il modello statunitense. [Ph.D. thesis]

Full text disponibile come:

[img]
Preview
PDF Document (KNOWLEDGE WORKERS MANAGEMENT) - Accepted Version
1701Kb

Abstract (italian or english)

Il presente studio affronta gli argomenti della concorrenza e delle invenzioni nel rapporto di lavoro subordinato statunitense. L’attività di ricerca è stata svolta in parte presso la School of Law della Boston University, USA, sotto la supervisione di Micheal C. Harper, professore di diritto del lavoro.
L’argomento presenta una crescente rilevanza, considerato che nella nuova organizzazione produttiva, fondata in gran parte sulla conoscenza globalizzata, al lavoro dipendente si chiede ormai sempre maggiore professionalità, innovazione e creatività. La scelta di esaminare questa tematica dalla prospettiva del “laboratorio USA”, è dovuta al primato di cui tale nazione gode a livello internazionale sul piano economico, scientifico e dell’innovazione dei processi lavorativi, che fanno emergere criticità in altri Paesi probabilmente ancora non avvertite.
Al fine di inquadrare gli istituti giudici menzionati nel modello statunitense, si è reso opportuno dare conto del sistema delle fonti normative negli USA, con particolare focus sul Restatement of Employment Law, cioè la raccolta di principi fondamentali elaborati negli anni dal common law in materia di rapporto di lavoro.
All'esame delle fonti segue la definizione del concetto di lavoratore subordinato (employee) e lavoratore autonomo (independent contractor), necessario per l’inquadramento del campo di applicazione degli obblighi scaturenti dal rapporto di lavoro subordinato, tra cui il duty of loyalty, implicato nel rapporto fiduciario. In tale ambito, si è osservata l’evoluzione giurisprudenziale che ha condotto all'adozione dei criteri relativi alla distinzione in esame, prevalentemente concernenti il giudizio sulla rilevanza degli elementi fattuali determinanti per l’accertamento della subordinazione.
Delineati i contorni della fattispecie di lavoro subordinato, il presente studio affronta la tematica della tipica forma del contratto di lavoro statunitense, il c.d. employment-at-will, cioè il rapporto a libera recedibilità. Tale peculiarità scaturisce dal principio fondamentale per cui le parti non sono vincolate ad alcun obbligo di fornire la motivazione per il licenziamento.
La terza parte del lavoro ha ad oggetto la disciplina della concorrenza del lavoratore effettuata sulla base delle conoscenze acquisite, legalmente o illegalmente, durante il rapporto e le relative tecniche di tutela del datore di lavoro, a fronte della violazione del duty of loyalty, quale obbligo del lavoratore subordinato di esecuzione della prestazione lavorativa nell'interesse esclusivo dell’imprenditore e, conseguentemente, di astensione dal porre in essere condotte pregiudizievoli nei confronti di quest’ultimo. Quanto alle tecniche di tutela esperibili in caso di violazione degli obblighi esaminati, vengono illustrati i rimedi legali e equitativi che il diritto statunitense offre al datore di lavoro.
La parte finale del presente studio si occupa della disciplina relativa alla titolarità dei diritti scaturenti dalle invenzioni sviluppate dai dipendenti nel corso del rapporto di lavoro. In questo senso si sono esaminate le definizioni di “invenzione” e “brevetto” ed il loro rapporto nel contesto della regolamentazione giuslavoristica; si è posta in rilievo la differenza tra invenzione come opera di ingegno e proprietà intellettuale tutelata dal diritto d’autore. Inoltre, si sono osservati i meccanismi sottesi alle norme fondamentali che regolano la materia e la loro convivenza con la libertà contrattuale delle parti e il loro potere di disporre dei suddetti diritti.

Abstract (a different language)

This work addresses the issues of competition and inventions in the U.S. employment relationships. The research was carried out in part at the Boston University School of Law of, under the supervision of Micheal C. Harper, professor of Labour Law.
The selection of the topic is justified in the light of its importance, given that in the new production organization, based largely on globalized knowledge, employees are now increasingly being asked for professionalism, innovation and creativity. The decision to examine this issue from the perspective of the "U.S. laboratory" is due to the primacy that this nation holds at international level on the economic, scientific and innovation of work processes, which bring out critical issues that in other Countries probably have not yet been raised.
In order to frame the above-mentioned topics, it has become appropriate to give an account of the system of regulatory sources in the USA, with particular focus on the Restatement of Employment Law, i.e. the collection of fundamental principles developed over the years by common law in the field of employment relationships.
The examination of the sources is followed by the definition of the concept of employee and self-employed worker (independent contractor), necessary for the assessment of the application of the obligations arising from the employment relationships, including the duty of loyalty, involved in the fiduciary law. In this context, the evolution of the case law has been observed, as well as the examination of the criteria relating to the distinction between employees and independent contractors, mainly concerning the judgement on the relevance of the factual elements determining the assessment of the existence of an employment relationship.
Subsequently, this study addresses the issue of the typical form of the U.S. employment contract, the so-called employment-at-will. This peculiarity is originated from the principle that the parties are not bound by any obligation to provide reasons for termination.
The third part of the work has as its object the discipline of competition of the worker carried out on the basis of the knowledge acquired, legally or illegally, during the relationship and the relative legal remedies for the employer, against the violation of the duty of loyalty, intended as an obligation of the employee to perform the work in the exclusive interest of the entrepreneur and, consequently, to refrain from engaging in prejudicial conduct against the company. About the remedies available in the event of breach of the obligations examined, the legal and equitable remedies that U.S. law offers the employer have been explained.
The final part of this study deals with the rules governing the ownership of rights arising from inventions developed by employees in the course of their employment. The definitions of "invention" and "patent" and their relationship in the context of employment law has been examined and the difference between invention as a work of genius and intellectual property protected by copyright has been highlighted. In addition, the mechanisms underlying the basic rules governing the subject matter and their coexistence with the contractual freedom of the parties and their power to dispose of these rights have been observed.

Statistiche Download
EPrint type:Ph.D. thesis
Tutor:Topo, Adriana
Supervisor:Harper, Michael
Ph.D. course:Ciclo 32 > Corsi 32 > GIURISPRUDENZA
Data di deposito della tesi:18 July 2020
Anno di Pubblicazione:September 2019
Key Words:KNOWLEDGE WORKERS MANAGEMENT CONCORRENZA E INVENZIONI NEL RAPPORTO DI LAVORO SUBORDINATO: IL MODELLO STATUNITENSE IL DIRITTO DEL LAVORO NEGLI USA; 1. Le fonti del diritto del lavoro; 2. Il “Restatement of Employment Law”; II. AUTONOMIA E SUBORDINAZIONE; 3. Definizione di lavoratore subordinato e lavoratore autonomo (Employees v Independent contractors); 4. Il Direct and Control Test; 5. L’Economic Realities Test; 6. L’ABC Test; III. IL RAPPORTO DI LAVORO A LIBERA RECEDIBILITÀ; 7. Il c.d. “Employment-at-will”; 8. Divieto di licenziamento per contrarietà all’ordine pubblico (Public-policy exception); 9. Licenziamento illegittimo per violazione di clausole implicite (Implied-contract exception); 10. Licenziamento illegittimo per violazione degli obblighi di buona fede contrattuale (Covenant-of-good-faith exception); IV. CONCORRENZA DEL LAVORATORE E TECNICHE DI TUTELA DEL DATORE DI LAVORO; 11. Il Duty of Loyalty nel Common Law ; 12. Fiduciary Relationship (rapporto fiduciario); 13. La genesi del duty of loyalty: il rapporto di agenzia (The Principal-Agent Relationship) e il rapporto di lavoro subordinato (Employer-Employee Relationship); 14. Duty of loyalty come fiduciary duty; 15. Elementi integranti la responsabilità contrattuale per violazione del duty of loyalty: a) concorrenza diretta ed indiretta (Direct v. Indirect Competition); 16. (Segue) b) Concorrenza e attività preparatorie (Competition v Mere Business Preparation); 17. (Segue) c) Attività concorrenziale svolta in segreto dal dipendente e acquiescenza del datore di lavoro (Secrecy of Employee Activities v Knowledge by the Employer); 18. (Segue) d) Duty of loyalty e scarso rendimento (poor performance); 19. (Segue) e) Dirigenti e dipendenti in posizioni non apicali (High Level Managerial v. Non-Managerial Employees); 20. Fattispecie tipiche: a) Storno di dipendenti (Soliciting) o ricerca e selezione di personale per la nuova attività (Hiring Co-workers of the Employer); 21. (Segue) b) Sfruttamento delle informazioni sulla clientela del datore di lavoro (Customer Lists); 22. (Segue) c) Sviamento di clientela (Contacting and Soliciting Customers and Clients of the Employer); 23. (Segue) d) Abuso del diritto di critica. Ordine pubblico (“Public Policy”), segnalazioni e denunce per fatti illeciti (Whistleblowing), relazioni sindacali (“Labor Relations”) e Social Media e Blogging; 24. Tecniche di tutela: a) Legal remedies; 25. (Segue) b) Tort Damages (risarcimento per fatto illecito); 26. (Segue) c) Equitable remedies (rimedi secondo equità): Injunction (inibitoria); Replevin (azione di rivendicazione); Constructive Trust; 27. Patto di non concorrenza (restrictive covenant o covenant-not-to-compete); 28. Interferenza illecita nei rapporti commerciali (Tort of Intentional Interference with Contract); 29. Appropriazione illecita di segreti commerciali (Misappropriation of Trade Secrets); 30. Conclusioni; V. INVENZIONI DEL LAVORATORE; 31. Invenzione e brevetto; 32. La titolarità dei diritti di proprietà intellettuale sulle invenzioni sviluppate dai dipendenti; 33. Leggi statali che limitano l’autonomia negoziale delle parti; 34. (Segue) Leggi statali permissive nei confronti dei pre-invention agreements; 35. (Segue) le interpretazioni giurisprudenziali sui limiti imposti dalle leggi statali
Settori scientifico-disciplinari MIUR:Area 12 - Scienze giuridiche > IUS/07 Diritto del lavoro
Struttura di riferimento:Dipartimenti > Dipartimento di Scienze Politiche, Giuridiche e Studi Internazionali
Codice ID:12979
Depositato il:10 Feb 2021 18:44
Simple Metadata
Full Metadata
EndNote Format

Bibliografia

I riferimenti della bibliografia possono essere cercati con Cerca la citazione di AIRE, copiando il titolo dell'articolo (o del libro) e la rivista (se presente) nei campi appositi di "Cerca la Citazione di AIRE".
Le url contenute in alcuni riferimenti sono raggiungibili cliccando sul link alla fine della citazione (Vai!) e tramite Google (Ricerca con Google). Il risultato dipende dalla formattazione della citazione.

BLANPAIN, R., Comparativism in Labor Law and Industrial Relations, in Comparative Labor Law and Industrial Relations in Industrialized Market Economies, Kluwer Law International, 2010. Cerca con Google

DAU-SCHMIDT, KENNETH G., Introduction: The American Law Institute's Restatement of Employment Law: Comments and Critiques. 21 Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal 245 (2017) Cerca con Google

DOUGLAS E. EDLIN, Common law theory. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Cerca con Google

DUHAIME, L. Common Law Legal Definition. http://www.duhaime.org/ Vai! Cerca con Google

ESTREICHER, SAMUEL - BODIE, MATTHEW T. - HARPER MICHAEL C. & SCHWAB, STEWART J., Foreword: The Restatement of Employment Law Project, 100 CORNELL L. REv. 1245 n.1 (2015) Cerca con Google

FAHLBECK, R., Reflections on Industrial Relations, IJCLLIR, 1996, vol. 12. Cerca con Google

GARNER, BRYAN A. A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (2nd, revised ed.). New York: Oxford University Press., (2001) [1995] Cerca con Google

GARNER, BRYAN A. Black's Law Dictionary – Common law (10th ed.). 2014 Cerca con Google

WECHSLER, HERBERT. Restatements and Legal Change: Problems of Policy in the Restatement Work of the American Law Institute, 13 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. (1968) Cerca con Google

http://www.duhaime.org/ Vai! Cerca con Google

https://www.ali.org/projects/ Vai! Cerca con Google

BODIE, MATTHEW T., Employment as Fiduciary Relationship, Georgetown Law Journal, 2017; Saint Louis U. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2016-7 Cerca con Google

BODIE, MATTHEW T., Participation as A Theory of Employment, 89 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 661, 679 (2013) Cerca con Google

BRILL RALPH L. (April 1968). "The Liability of an Employer for the Wilful Torts of his Servants," Chicago-Kent Law Review Cerca con Google

BURRY BENJAMIN F., Testing Economic Reality: FLSA and Title VII Protection for Workfare Participants, 1 U. CHIC. LEGAL F. 561 (2009) Cerca con Google

BUSCAGLIA CHRISTOPHER (2009) Crafting a Legislative Solution to the Economic Harm of Employee Misclassification, 9 U.C. DAVIS BUS. L.J. 111 Cerca con Google

CARLSON, RICHARD R. Why the Law Still Can’t Tell an Employee When it Sees One and How it Ought to Stop Trying, 22 BERKELEY J. EMP. & LAB. L. 295, 302-304 (2001) Cerca con Google

DAU-SCHMIDT KENNETH G. & RAY MICHAEL D., The Definition of “Employee” in American Labor and Employment Law, 53 BULL. COMP. LAB. REL. 59 (2004). Cerca con Google

DAU-SCHMIDT KENNETH G., The Impact of Emerging Information Technologies on the Employment Relationship: New Gigs for Labor and Employment Law, 2017 U. CHI. LEGAL F. (2017) Cerca con Google

DAU-SCHMID K.G., The Problem of 'Misclassification' or How to Define Who is an 'Employee' Under Protective Legislation in the Information Age, 2018 Cerca con Google

DAVIDOV, GUY. The Three Axes of Employment Relationships: A Characterization of Workers in Need of Protection, 52 U. TORONTO L.J. (2002) Cerca con Google

DEKNATEL, ANNA & HOFF-DOWNING, LAUREN. ABC on the Books and in the Courts: An Analysis of Recent Independent Contractor and Misclassification Statues, 18 U. PA. J.L. & SOC. CHANGE 53, 56 (2015) Cerca con Google

DOBBS DAN B., The Law Of Torts, Vol. 2, 909 (2001) Cerca con Google

ESTREICHER, SAMUEL & LESTER, GILLIAN. Concepts and Insights Series: Employment Law 139 (2008) Cerca con Google

ESTREICHER, SAMUEL – BODIE, MATTEW T. – HARPER, MICHAEL C. – MORRISS, ANDREW P. – SCHWAB, STEWART J. Restatement of the Law Third Employment Law, The American Law Institute, 2010 Cerca con Google

ESTREICHER S., HARPER M. C., TIPPETT E. Cases and Materials on Employment Discrimination and Employment Law, the Field as Practiced, 5th Edition, 2016 Cerca con Google

FARBER DANIEL A., Statutory Interpretation and Legislative Supremacy, 78 GEO. L.J. 281, 281 (1989) Cerca con Google

FOX, MICHAEL W., Who's an Employee, Who's the Employer? It's Not As Easy As You Might Think, 2016 TXCLE ADV. BUS. L. 1, Appendix 25 (2016) Cerca con Google

GOLDMAN ALVIN L., Labor and Employment Law in The United States, (1996) Cerca con Google

HARGER, LLOYD. "Workers' Compensation, A Brief History". Florida Department of Financial Services. Retrieved 22 June 2010 Cerca con Google

HARPER MICHAEL C., Using the Anglo-American Respondeat Superior Principle to Assign Responsibility for Worker Statutory Benefits and Protections. Boston Univ. School of Law, Public Law Research Paper (2017). Cerca con Google

KAPLAN JOHN, WEISBERG ROBERT, BINDER GUYORA. Criminal Law - Cases and Materials, 7th ed. 2012, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business Cerca con Google

KYOUNGSEON KIM, A Study of the Definition of “Employee” under the Federal Employment and Labor Statutes Cerca con Google

MALTBY, LEWIS L. & YAMADA, DAVID C., Beyond “Economic Realities”: The Case for Amending Federal Employment Discrimination Laws to Include Independent Contractors, 38 B.C. L. REV. 239, 260 (1997) Cerca con Google

NOLAN, DENNIS R. - ST. ANTOINE, THEODORE J. – SLATER, JOSEPH E. - GOLDMAN, ALVIN. Working Group on Chapter 1 of the Proposed Restatement of Employment Law: Existence of Employment Relationship, 13 EMP. RTS. & EMP. POL'Y J. (2009) Cerca con Google

O'SULLIVAN, ARTHUR; SHEFFRIN, STEVEN M. (2003). Economics: Principles in Action. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458: Pearson Prentice Hall. 367 Cerca con Google

OWEN, RALPH DORNFELD. "Tort Liability in German School Law". Law and Contemporary Problems. Duke University School of Law. 20 (1) Cerca con Google

ROTHSTEIN MARK A. & LIEBMAN LANCE, Employment Law 548 (1999) Cerca con Google

WEIL, DAVID "The Application of the Fair Labor Standards Act's "Suffer or Permit" Standard in the Identification of Employees Who Are Misclassified as Independent Contractors" United States Department of Labor, 2015 Cerca con Google

YORAM DINSTEIN. Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 1978, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; Commentaries on the Law of Master and Servant: Including the Modern Laws on Workmen's Compensation, Arbitration, Employers' Liability, Etc., Lawyers co-operative publishing Company, 1913 Cerca con Google

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (2015) Hargrove v. Sleepy’s, LLC, 220 N.J. 289, 308 Cerca con Google

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2003) Clackamas Gastroenterology Assoc., P. C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440 Cerca con Google

Supreme Court of Indiana (2001). GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397, 403 Cerca con Google

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division (1996) EEOC v Fawn Vendors, 965 F. Supp. 909 Cerca con Google

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit (1996) Alexander v. Rush North Shore Medical Center, 101 F.3d 487 Cerca con Google

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (1991). Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 Cerca con Google

U.S. Supreme Court (1989). Community for Creative Non–Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, at 751-52 Cerca con Google

Supreme Court of California (1989) S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dept. of Indus. Relations, 769 P.2d 399 Cerca con Google

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (1985) Donovan v. DialAmerica Mktg., Inc., 757 F.2d 1376, 1382 Cerca con Google

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (1984) Donovan v. Brandel, 736 F.2d 1114 Cerca con Google

Supreme Court of Nevada (1978) National Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Fantauzzi, 584 P.2d 689 Cerca con Google

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (1975) Mednick v. Albert Enterprises, Inc., 508 F.2d 300 Cerca con Google

U.S. Supreme Court (1974) Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 Cerca con Google

U.S. Supreme Court (1973) Logue v. United States, 412 U.S. 521 Cerca con Google

U.S. Supreme Court (1968) NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of America, 390 U.S.254, 258 Cerca con Google

U.S. Supreme Court (1961) Goldberg v. Whitaker House Co-op., Inc., 366 U.S. 28 Cerca con Google

U.S. Supreme Court (1902). United States v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 184 U.S. 49 Cerca con Google

U.S. Supreme Court (1989). Community for Creative Non–Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, at 751-52 Cerca con Google

U.S. Supreme Court (1889) Singer Mfg. Co. v. Rahn, 132 U.S. 518, 523 Cerca con Google

https://ssrn.com/abstract=3143296 Vai! Cerca con Google

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/regulatory-arbitrage.html Vai! Cerca con Google

BALLUM, DEBORAH A., “Employment-at-will: The Impending Death of a Doctrine” 37 Am. Bus. L.J. 653, 660 Cerca con Google

EPSTEIN, RICHARD, In Defense of the Contract at Will, 57 U. Chi. L. 11Rev. 947 (1984) Cerca con Google

FISHER, ROBERT W. “When workers are discharged—an overview,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1973 Cerca con Google

GORR, JEANNE DUQUETTE The Model Employment Termination Act: Fruitful Seed or Noxious Weed? 31 DUQLR 111 (1992) Cerca con Google

MUHL, CHARLES J. The employment-at-will doctrine: three major exceptions, Monthly Labor Review January 2001 Cerca con Google

NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG LLP "Labor Law: NLRB finds standard at-will employment provisions unlawful". The National Law Review, (2012) Cerca con Google

POYNER SPRUILL LLP "NLRB Attacks Employment At-Will Disclaimers". The National Law Review. (2011) Cerca con Google

ROTHSTEIN, MARK A. – KNAPP, ANDRIA S. & LIEBMAN, LANCE ''Cases and Materials on Employment Law'' (New York: Foundation Press, 1987), 738 Cerca con Google

SHANE & ROSENTHAL, Employment Law Deskbook, LexisNexis (May 10, 2019) Cerca con Google

Supreme Court of California (2000) Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317, 8 P.3d 1089, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352 Cerca con Google

Supreme Court of Rhode Island (1993) Pacheo v. Raytheon, 623 A.2d 464 Cerca con Google

Supreme Court of California (1988) Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654, 765 P.2d 373 Cerca con Google

Supreme Court of Nevada (1987) Kmart Corporation v. Ponsock, 103 Nev. 39, 732 P.2d 1364 Cerca con Google

Court of Appeals of Texas (1986) Webber v. MW Kellogg Co., 720 S.W.2d 124 Cerca con Google

Court of Appeals of the State of New York (1983) Murphy v. American Home Products Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 448 N.E.2d Cerca con Google

Wisconsin Supreme Court (1983) Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet 113 Wis.2d 561, 335 N.W.2d 834 Cerca con Google

Minnesota Supreme Court (1983) Pine River State Bank v. Mettilee 333 N.W.2d 622 Cerca con Google

District Court of Appeal of Florida (1983) Muller v. Stromberg Carlson Corporation, 427 So.2d 266 Cerca con Google

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (1983) Richardson v. Charles Cole Memorial Hospital, 320 Pa.Super. 106, 466 A.2d 1084 Cerca con Google

Illinois Supreme Court (1981) International Harvester Company, 9 85 Ill.2d 124, 421 N.E.2d 876 Cerca con Google

Supreme Court of Michigan (1980) Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan,408 Mich. 579, 292 N.W.2d 880 Cerca con Google

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California (1980) Lawrence M. Cleary v. American Airlines, Inc. 111 Cal.App.3d 443 Cerca con Google

District Court of Appeal of Florida (1980) Catania v. Eastern Airlines, Inc. 381 So.2d 265 Cerca con Google

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California (1963) Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 174 Cal.App.2d 184 Cerca con Google

Supreme Court of the United States (1915) Coppage v. State of Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 Cerca con Google

AARON, BENJAMIN, Employees’ Duty of Loyalty: Introduction and Overview, 20 Comp. Lab. L. & Pol’y J. 143, 144 (1999) Cerca con Google

BOIDE, M.T. (2016). Employment as fiduciary relationship, Georgetown Law Journal, 2017; Saint Louis U. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2016-7 Cerca con Google

BOYLE, J.A. (2000). Surveys of recent developments in New Jersey law. Seton hall law review, 30, 671-681 Cerca con Google

CAVICO, F.C. (2001). Covenants not to compete in the private employment sector. St. Thomas university law review, 14(1), 53 Cerca con Google

CAVICO, F.C., MUJTABA, B.G., MUFFLER, S.C. & SAMUEL, M. (2013). Social media and employment at-will: Tort law and practical considerations for employees, managers and organizations. Journal of New Media and Mass Communication, 11, 25-41 Cerca con Google

CAVICO, F.C., MUJTABA, B.G., MUFFLER, S.C. & SAMUEL, M. (2013). Social media and the workplace: Legal, ethical and practical consequences for management. Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization, 12(1), 1-46 Cerca con Google

CAVICO, F.C., MUJTABA, B.G. & MUFFLER, S.C. (2016). Covenants not to compete in employment: The relationship of education and training criteria to enforceability. SAM: Advanced Management Journal, 81(2), 45-59 Cerca con Google

CAVICO, F.C. & MUJTABA, B.G. Legal challenges for the global manager and entrepreneur (2nd Edn). Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 2014 Cerca con Google

CAVICO, F.C., MUFFLER, S.C. & MUJTABA, B.G. (2018) The duty of loyalty in the employment relationship: legal analysis and recommendations for employers and workers. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, Volume 21, Issue 3, 2018 Cerca con Google

CAVICO, F.C., ORTA, M, MUFFLER, S.C. & MUJTABA, B.G. (2014). Business plans as legally protected trade secrets under the uniform trade secrets act. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 6(2), 42-66 Cerca con Google

DEMOTT, DEBORAH A. Relationships of Trust and Confidence in the Workplace, 100 Cornell Law Review 1255-1280 (2015) Cerca con Google

DEMOTT, D.A. (2006). Breach of fiduciary duty: On justifiable expectations of loyalty and their consequences. Arizona Law Review, 48, 925-956 Cerca con Google

DEMOTT, DEBORAH A., Disloyal Agents, 58 Ala. L. Rev. 1049, 1049 (2007) Cerca con Google

ESTREICHER, SAMUEL – BODIE, MATTEW T. – HARPER, MICHAEL C. – MORRISS, ANDREW P. – SCHWAB, STEWART J. Restatement of the Law Third Employment Law, The American Law Institute, 2010 Cerca con Google

GRAY, S. (2000). Futch v. McAlister towing Inc.: Transforming the punitory effect of a breach of the employee duty of loyalty. South Carolina Law Review, 51, 927-38 Cerca con Google

GREBE, B.L. (2002). Fidelity at the workplace: The two-faced nature of the duty of loyalty under Dalton v. camp. North Carolina law review, 80, 1815-1828 Cerca con Google

LEE, K. (2006). Anti-Employer blogging: Breach of duty of loyalty and the procedure for allowing discovery of a blogger’s identity before service of process is affected. Duke Law & Technology Law Review, 2 Cerca con Google

REUSCHLEIN, H.G & GREGORY, W.A. (1979). Handbook on the law of agency and partnership. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company Cerca con Google

SELMI, M. (2012). The restatement’s supersized duty of loyalty provision. Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, 16, 395-411 Cerca con Google

TUSCHMAN, R. Statutory and common law protections of business interests. The Florida bar association 16th Annual labor and employment law annual update, 2016 Cerca con Google

WARREN, M. & PEDOWITZ, A. (2011). Social media, trade secrets, duties of loyalty, restrictive covenants, the sky is falling. Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal, 29, 99-112 Cerca con Google

WILSON W A, 'A Note on Fact and Law' (1963) 26 MLR 609, 613 Cerca con Google

District court for the district of Colorado (2017). McClure v. Imperial woodworking company, 2017 US Dist. LEXIS 125619 Cerca con Google

District court for the northern district of Illinois (2017). Mimedix Group, Inc. v. Fox, 2017 US Dist. LEXIS 121801 Cerca con Google

District court for the district of Nevada (2017). Wilson v. Nevada affordable housing assistance corporation, 2017 US Dist. LEXIS 49434 Cerca con Google

Minnesota court of appeals (2017). Hearing associates, Inc. v. Downs, 2017 Minn. App. Unpub. Lexis 499 Cerca con Google

District court of New York (2017). VCOM International multi-media corp. v. Gluck, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44425 Cerca con Google

District court for the northern district of Illinois (2016). Laba v. Chicago transit authority, US Dist. LEXIS 4113 Cerca con Google

District court for the district of New York (2016). Adesanya, v. Novartis pharmaceuticals corporation, US LEXIS 108056 Cerca con Google

District court for the district of Columbia (2016). Hedgeye risk management, LLC v. Paul Heldman, 196 F. Supp.3d 40 Cerca con Google

District court for the eastern district of Pennsylvania (2016). Numeric analytics, LLC v. McCabe 161 F. Supp. 3d 3348 Cerca con Google

District court for the district of Nebraska (2016). West Plains, LLC v. Retzlaff grain company Inc. US Dist. LEXIS 86344 Cerca con Google

District court for the southern district of New York (2015). Federal Insurance Co. v. Mertiz, Jr. US Dist. LEXIS 132690 Cerca con Google

District court for the District of Columbia (2015). Base one technologies, Inc. v. Mohammed Ali, 78 F. Supp. 3d 186 Cerca con Google

District court for the southern district of New York (2015). Shamrock Power Sales, LLC v. John Scherer, US District LEXIS 133650 Cerca con Google

District court for the southern district of Texas (2015). McGowan & company v. Roger F. Brogan, 93 F. Supp. 3d 624 Cerca con Google

District court for the district of Maryland (2015). Ameritox, LTD v. Robert savelich, 92 F. Supp. 3d 389 Cerca con Google

Court of appeals for the eighth circuit (2015). Stuart C. irby company, Inc. v. Brandon Tipton, 796 F.3d 918 Cerca con Google

Supreme Court of New Jersey (2015). Kaye v. Rosefielde, 223 N.J. 218, 121 A.3d 862 Cerca con Google

District court for the northern district of California (2015). Blackbird Technologies, Inc. v. Joshi, 2015 US Dist. LEXIS 136505 Cerca con Google

District court for the middle district of Florida (2014). Aquent LLC v. Mary Stapleton, 65 F. Supp. 3d 1339 Cerca con Google

District court for the middle district of Pennsylvania (2014) Advanced Fluid Systems, Inc. v. Kevin Huber, 28 F. Supp. 3d 306 Cerca con Google

District court for the eastern district of Pennsylvania (2014). Synthes, Inc. v. Emerge medical, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 3d 617 Cerca con Google

District court for the eastern district of Virginia (2014). Audio-visual group, LLC. v. Christopher Green, US District LEXIS 25413 Cerca con Google

District court for the northern district of Illinois (2014). Instant Technology, LLC. v. Elizabeth DeFazio, 40 F. Supp. 3d 989 Cerca con Google

District court for the central district of Illinois (2014). First financial bank, N.A. v. Bauknecht, 71 F. Supp. 3d 819 Cerca con Google

District court for the western district of New York (2014). Installed building products, LLC v. Scott Cotrell, 2014 US Dist. LEXIS 101926 Cerca con Google

District court for the district of Maryland (2013). EDI Precast, LLC v. Raymond K. Carnahan, Jr., 982 F. Supp. 2d 616 Cerca con Google

District court for the southern district of New York (2013). Judy Poller v. Bioscript, 974 F. Supp. 2d 204 Cerca con Google

District court for the southern district of Ohio (2012). International paper company v. David G. Goldschmidt, 872 F. Supp. 2d 624 Cerca con Google

District court for the eastern district of Wisconsin (2012). George chapes, III v. Pro-Pac, Inc., 2012 US Dist. LEXIS 74833 Cerca con Google

Court of appeals for the third circuit (2012). Colgate-Palmolive Company v. Tandem industries, US Dist. LEXIS 11290 Cerca con Google

District court for the southern district of Florida (2012). Hennegan Co. v. Arriola, 855 F. Supp. 2d 1354 Cerca con Google

District court for the district of New Jersey (2011) Hahn v. OnBoard, LLC, Civil No. 09-3639 (MAS) Cerca con Google

District court for the middle district of Florida (2007). Furmanite America, Inc. v. T.D. Williamson, Inc., 506 F. Supp. 2d 1134 Cerca con Google

Missouri supreme court (2005). Scanwell freight express, Inc. v. Chan, 162 S.W.3d 477 Cerca con Google

Supreme Court of North Carolina (2001). Dalton v. Camp, 548 S.E.2d 704 Cerca con Google

Supreme Court of South Carolina (1999). Futch v. McAlister towing Inc., 518 S.E.2d 591 Cerca con Google

New Jersey supreme court (1999). Cameco, Inc. v. Gedicke, 724 A.2d 783 Cerca con Google

District court for the district of Columbia (1997). Riggs investment management corp. v. Columbia Partners, LLC., 966 F. Supp. 1250 Cerca con Google

District court for the district of Colorado (1997). Marsh v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1458 Cerca con Google

Florida court of appeals (1992). Harllee v. Professional services industries, Inc., 619 So.2d 298 Cerca con Google

Minnesota court of appeals (1987). Rehabilitation Specialists, Inc. v. Koering, 404 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) Cerca con Google

Superior Court of Pennsylvania (1986) Garbish v. Malvern Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 517 A.2d 547, 554, 1986 Cerca con Google

Florida court of appeals (1981). Fish v. Adams, 401 So.2d 843 Cerca con Google

Florida court of appeals (1980). Insurance field services, Inc. v. White & white inspection & audit services, 384 So.2d 303 Cerca con Google

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (1976) Borden v. Sinskey, 530 F.2d 478, 489-90 (3d Cir. 1976) Cerca con Google

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (1962) Sylvester v. Beck, 178 A.2d 755, 757 Cerca con Google

BIRNHACK, MICHAEL D., Who Owns Bratz? The Integration of Copyright and Employment Law, 20 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 95, 113 (2009) Cerca con Google

CHISUM, DONALD S. Chisum on Patents § 22.03 (2012) Cerca con Google

DORVEE, STEPHEN Intellectual Property Protection: Avoiding Disputes, Navigating Intellectual Property Disputes (Aspatore 2009), 2009 WL 3344406 Cerca con Google

GIESEL, GRACE MCLANE Contracts contrary to public policy, in Corbin On Contracts (CORBIN, ARTHUR L; PERILLO, JOSEPH M) § 80.19 (rev. ed. 2003) Cerca con Google

GULLETTE, ROBERT L., State Legislation Governing Ownership Rights in Inventions Under Employee Invention Agreements, 62 J. PAT. OFF. SOC’Y 732, 733 (1980) Cerca con Google

HOWELL, PARKER A., Whose Invention Is It Anyway? Employee Invention Assignment Agreements and Their Limits, 8 WASH. J.L. TECH. & ARTS 79, 80 (2012) Cerca con Google

JAGER, MELVIN F. Trade Secrets Law § 3:18 (2012); RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNFAIR COMPETITION § 42 (1995) Cerca con Google

LAFRANCE, MARY, Nevada’s Employee Inventions Statute: Novel, Nonobvious, and Patently Wrong, 3 Nev. L.J. 88, 101 (2002) Cerca con Google

MCCARTHY, J. THOMAS Mccarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 16:36 (4th ed. 2011) Cerca con Google

MEDIRATTA, BHARAT – BICK, JULIE The Google Way: Give Engineers Room, N.Y. TIMES, October 21, 2007 Cerca con Google

MERGES, ROBERT P – MENELL, PETER S. & LEMLEY, MARK A., Intellectual property in the new technological age 130 (5th ed. 2010) Cerca con Google

MILLS, JOHN GLADSTONE - REILEY, DONALD C. & HIGHLEY, ROBERT C. Patent Law Fundamentals § 17:21 (2d ed. 1986) Cerca con Google

MOY, R. CARL Moy's Walker On Patents § 10:17 (4th ed. 2011) Cerca con Google

NIMMER, MELVILLE B. & NIMMER, DAVID, Nimmer On Copyright § 5.03[B][1][b][ii] (Matthew Bender, rev. ed. 2010). Cerca con Google

NIMMER, RAYMOND T. Law of Computer Technology § 4:9 (2010) Cerca con Google

PATRY, WILLIAM F. Patry on Copyright § 5:52 (2011) Cerca con Google

PETTERSSON, EDVARD, Mattel Must Pay MGA $225 Million in Punitive Damages, Fees in Bratz Case, in Bloomberg, 2011 Cerca con Google

PISEGNA-COOK, EVELYN D. Ownership Rights of Employee Inventions: The Role of Preinvention Assignment Agreements and State Statutes, 2 U. Balt. Intell. Prop. L.J. 163 (1994) Cerca con Google

SINGER, NORMAN J. - SINGER, J.D. SHAMBIE Sutherland Statutory Construction § 52:1 (7th ed. 2012) Cerca con Google

SCHALLER, WILLIAM LYNCH, Jumping Ship: Legal Issues Relating to Employee Mobility in High Technology Industries, 17 LAB. LAW. 25, 70 (2001) Cerca con Google

SZCZEPANSKI, STEVEN Z., Eckstrom’s Licensing In Foreign And Domestic Operations § 8A:53 (2012) Cerca con Google

Supreme Court of the United States (2011) Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2188, 2195 Cerca con Google

US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2010) Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 616 F.3d 904 Cerca con Google

District Court, N.D. California (2010) Applera Corp. – Applied Biosystems Grp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 17 Cerca con Google

Court of Chancery of Delaware (2010) Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Kirkland, CIV.A. 3512-VCS, 2010 WL 610725, *17 Cerca con Google

Minnesota Court of Appeals (2008) NeoNetworks, Inc. v. Cree, Nos. A07-0729, A07-1578, 2008 WL 2104161, *5 Cerca con Google

United States District Court, N.D. California (2007) Cadence Design Sys., Inc. v. Bhandari, No. 07-00823, 2007 WL 3343085, *5 n.4 Cerca con Google

United States District Court, N.D. California (2006) Iconix, Inc. v. Tokuda, 457 F.Supp.2d 969, 989-90, 1003 Cerca con Google

District Court, N.D. California (2005) Enreach, Inc. v. Embedded Internet Solutions, Inc., 403 F.Supp.2d 968, 975 Cerca con Google

Supreme Court of Washington (2000) Waterjet Tech., Inc. v. Flow Int'l Corp., 996 P.2d 598, 601 Cerca con Google

Court of Appeals of Washington (1992) MacHen, Inc. v. Aircraft Design, Inc., 828 P.2d 73 Cerca con Google

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit (1992) Eaton Corp. v. Giere, 971 F.2d 136, 140 Cerca con Google

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One (1986) Cubic Corp. v. Marty, 185 Cal. App. 3d 438, 451 Cerca con Google

U.S. Supreme Court (1933) United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U.S. 178, 187 Cerca con Google

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURES § 1512 (8th ed. 2001), http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/s1512.htm Vai! Cerca con Google

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/jobs/21pre.html Vai! Cerca con Google

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-08-04/mattel-must-pay-mga-225-million-in-punitive-damages-fees-in-bratz-case Vai! Cerca con Google

United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patents by Country, State, and Year – Utility Patents (March 27, 2012), https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/cst_utl.htm Vai! Cerca con Google

Download statistics

Solo per lo Staff dell Archivio: Modifica questo record