No, trade secrets are still protected by IP law.
Coca-Cola specifically. Apparently, you can own a secret even if you've shared it.
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
liberty student: Your cost to deter copying can't be more expensive than costs of creation or someone will create rival products. This is why Coke may have a secret, but also dozens if not hundreds of competing cola brands to contend with.
Your cost to deter copying can't be more expensive than costs of creation or someone will create rival products. This is why Coke may have a secret, but also dozens if not hundreds of competing cola brands to contend with.
Yes, it depends on the circumstances.....but some thngs can be kept secret at fairly low costs and yet the secret keeps competition from mimicking the product. Coke has hundreds of competitors but there are no identical tasting sodas to Coke.
liberty student: And as always, you're assuming that you get 100% success with copying deterrence. Even one failure, and a copy is in the wild, and there is no guaranteed way to deter non-contracted third parties from copying with their own property.
And as always, you're assuming that you get 100% success with copying deterrence. Even one failure, and a copy is in the wild, and there is no guaranteed way to deter non-contracted third parties from copying with their own property.
I don't assume 100% success and unlike you I don't assume 100% failure. If keeping secrets only gives a small lead time it may still be very valuable for the group keeping the secret. First to market can mean a lot in business.
JackCuyler:Actually, the Old Coke - New Coke "debacle" of the early 80's demonstrates clearly that image, not taste, is most important,
How does that expain why you drink water? Is that because water has a better brand image than Coke? Or maybe because you prefer water at times to the taste of Coke. To argue that taste in relation to food is not the most important element is just plain stupid. If Coke tastes bad people eventually won't buy it no matter how much they spend on advertising.
JackCuyler: I've pretty much agreed with most of your points in this thread. Even Mr. Kinsella agreed with some. What I think you're ignoring is the fact that trade secrets is a tiny portion of IP overall. I agree that trade secrets in a free market would probably be the same or very similar to how they are now. What would not be the same will be the larger parts of IP - copyright, trademark and patent.
I've pretty much agreed with most of your points in this thread. Even Mr. Kinsella agreed with some. What I think you're ignoring is the fact that trade secrets is a tiny portion of IP overall. I agree that trade secrets in a free market would probably be the same or very similar to how they are now. What would not be the same will be the larger parts of IP - copyright, trademark and patent.
The issue is really about contracts. I think they have a place in controlling information and basically Kinsella and LS think they don't.
liberty student: My point to Max, was that he cannot know that the cost does not influence the price, that is to say, how much individual consumers of Coke value the secrecy of its formula or not. I wasn't trying to make an argument about how the cost raises the price, but that he cannot prove that the cost of secrecy adds value to the product from the consumer perspective.
My point to Max, was that he cannot know that the cost does not influence the price, that is to say, how much individual consumers of Coke value the secrecy of its formula or not. I wasn't trying to make an argument about how the cost raises the price, but that he cannot prove that the cost of secrecy adds value to the product from the consumer perspective.
The consumer is not interested in the value of Coke's secret...they are interested only in the taste and the price. Given that lots of people buy Coke it is reasonable to think people like the taste. It is also true that not all soda tastes the same...some by design others by the inability to exactly imitate the other product. So what matters for Coke is to keep other firms from exactly mimicking their taste. Same is true for KFC. Uniqueness has advantages.
Maxliberty:I don't assume 100% success and unlike you I don't assume 100% failure.
The problem is, less than 100% success is 100% failure in the digital age. If one person breaks their NDA, even if they pay the contractual consequences, that secret is out, and it can never be recaptured.
All a NDA can do, is provide some financial relief for the leak (assuming it can be enforced).
Maxliberty:If keeping secrets only gives a small lead time it may still be very valuable for the group keeping the secret. First to market can mean a lot in business.
I have no problem with keeping secrets, but as you mention, in order to come to market, the secret has to be somewhat revealed. While coke may have a secret recipe, it's not beyond our technological capability to determine what it is from a commercial sample.
Where I think secrets have the most utility, is when they are for internal processes, not for end user consumption. I'm talking about proprietary analytical methods and formulas. Like that super computer Sachs has been using to game Wall Street.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student:If one person breaks their NDA, even if they pay the contractual consequences, that secret is out, and it can never be recaptured.
And what if they don't break the NDA?
Also, what is your definition of anarchy?
Maxliberty: liberty student:If one person breaks their NDA, even if they pay the contractual consequences, that secret is out, and it can never be recaptured. And what if they don't break the NDA?
I don't understand the question.
Maxliberty:Also, what is your definition of anarchy?
More or less, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism
Maxliberty: JackCuyler:Actually, the Old Coke - New Coke "debacle" of the early 80's demonstrates clearly that image, not taste, is most important, How does that expain why you drink water? Is that because water has a better brand image than Coke? Or maybe because you prefer water at times to the taste of Coke. To argue that taste in relation to food is not the most important element is just plain stupid. If Coke tastes bad people eventually won't buy it no matter how much they spend on advertising.
I agree that taste is important. My point was, Coke spent a lot of time and money on research prior to announcing that they were switching the fomula. All of their taste tests had the same result - the new formula tasted better than the old, and by a very large margin. But after the formula was changed, there was a backlash. It seems that the tradition of Coke was more important to consumers than taste. Wikipedia has a rather detailed article on new Coke, as does snopes.com.
Also, keep in mind that Coke's formula is partially the result of state monopoly. I have no idea to what degree coca leaves affect the taste of Coke, but I do know that spent leaves are in there. They are imported to the US by Stepan, which is the only company in the US authorized to do so.
JackCuyler:Then it follows, seeing as how Coke is not bankrupt, that the various prices of Coke products are sufficient to cover the costs involved in protecting their secret formula.
You guys do know that the formula for Coke is not actually secret don't you?
See The Big Book of Secrets.
liberty student: Maxliberty: liberty student:If one person breaks their NDA, even if they pay the contractual consequences, that secret is out, and it can never be recaptured. And what if they don't break the NDA? I don't understand the question. Maxliberty:Also, what is your definition of anarchy? More or less, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism
If people don't break the NDA then the NDA effectively protects the IP.
liberty student:More or less, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism
So anarchy for you is an end point where no State exists. Can any form of coercion exist? What is the definition of the State?
JackCuyler:My point was, Coke spent a lot of time and money on research prior to announcing that they were switching the fomula. All of their taste tests had the same result - the new formula tasted better than the old, and by a very large margin. But after the formula was changed, there was a backlash. It seems that the tradition of Coke was more important to consumers than taste.
Coke's mistake was to assume that simply because one tasted better than the other that it meant no one would want the other. Steak tastes better than hamburger but I still like hamburger.
The whole point of this example is that Coke has successfully used NDA's to keep the Coke formula secret, just like KFC. Those are just big examples there are millions of small examples in virtually every business in the world. People like to keep information they think is valuable under control if they can. It seems so obvious and human nature that it is strange you don't see that.
Maxliberty:If people don't break the NDA then the NDA effectively protects the IP.
That's like saying if I tell you a secret and you promise not to tell, and you don't, that trust effectively protects the IP. It doesn't actually prove anything about NDAs.
Maxliberty:So anarchy for you is an end point where no State exists.
I'm not sure I agree with that.
Maxliberty:Can any form of coercion exist?
Absolutely. Note, I oppose aggression, not coercion.
Maxliberty:What is the definition of the State?
Agent claiming and enforcing monopoly authority on a jurisdiction through the use of aggression. Give or take. I suspect we need a new thread for this topic.
The whole point of this example is that Coke has successfully used NDA's to keep the Coke formula secret, just like KFC.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Maxliberty:The whole point of this example is that Coke has successfully used NDA's to keep the Coke formula secret, just like KFC.
And the whole truth is that neither one of them have done any such thing. I gave a link a few posts back to a book that reveals the formulas for both Coke and KFC's "secret recipe" batter. The whole secret formula shtick was always nothing more than a marketing gimmick.
DBratton: The whole secret formula shtick was always nothing more than a marketing gimmick.
The whole secret formula shtick was always nothing more than a marketing gimmick.
Oh, the irony.
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
DBratton: Maxliberty:The whole point of this example is that Coke has successfully used NDA's to keep the Coke formula secret, just like KFC. And the whole truth is that neither one of them have done any such thing. I gave a link a few posts back to a book that reveals the formulas for both Coke and KFC's "secret recipe" batter. The whole secret formula shtick was always nothing more than a marketing gimmick.
This is unlikely. I strongly suspect those formulas are in fact still secret. Because some book claims to have the formula doesnt mean they do. What strongly suggests they do not is the fact that there are no generic substitutes for those highly popular products. I suspect we would see that if the formula was really available.
liberty student:That's like saying if I tell you a secret and you promise not to tell, and you don't, that trust effectively protects the IP.
This is by definition as you described it a true statement. That is what NDA's are, a formal agreement not to tell other people some piece of information. It has everything to do with NDA's.
liberty student: I suspect we need a new thread for this topic.
Ok I will start one.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap