Security_Computer_Laptop in Chain.jpegMichigan Companies were recently given a new tool for fighting back against trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition.

Specifically, in Actuator Specialties, Inc. v. Chinavare the Michigan Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court’s determination that Actuator Specialties established a threat of misappropriation against its former employee and his new employer. This threat entitled

Business Headlock.jpgFestivus – as introduced by Seinfeld – is a holiday celebration that included the “Airing of Grievances,” i.e., public criticism and pronouncements as to how a particular person has been a disappointment in the past year. 

The timing of holiday and year-end bonuses also often mark the beginning of a similar airing of

Fingerprint shackle.jpgA recent article in the Wall Street Journal, As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Ensnared (Gary Fields and John Emshwiller), details the increasing number of federal criminal statutes and federal prosecutions – a threefold increase over the last 30 years. The article attributes – in part – this upward spiral to the criminalization of issues generally

Blueprints.jpgEmployers commonly require employees to execute noncompetition agreements (also referred to as covenants not to compete or restrictive covenants). Under Michigan law (MCL 445.774a), such agreements will be enforceable if reasonable.

In theory, an enforceable noncompete agreement generally places certain limitations on an employee’s ability to work for a competitor or to start a competitive

Business professional in handcuffs.jpgA recent opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (PDF) confirms that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (essentially a federal computer hacking statute) continues to be a significant resource for employers to protect against the loss and damage of mission critical information due to departing or rogue employees.

To add the Computer