IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jleorg/v27yi1p137-158.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Economic Analysis of Trade-Secret Protection in Buyer-Seller Relationships

Author

Listed:
  • Stefan Bechtold
  • Felix Höffler

Abstract

The economic analysis of trade-secret protection has traditionally focused on the interests of companies to conceal information from competitors in order to gain a competitive advantage through trade-secret law. This has neglected cases in which the interest is not in concealing information from competitors but from trading partners. We investigate trade-secret protection in such cases. Frequently, asymmetric information will lead to inefficient trade; at the same time, protecting private information might create incentives for socially desirable investments. We model this trade-off in a simple buyer-seller model and find that the optimal fine for violations of trade secrets is positive. In general, however, the welfare effects of increasing a fine are ambiguous. We discuss conditioning the legal protection on a minimum investment by the informed party to conceal the information and argue that this helps to apply trade-secret protection only when it increases welfare. This rationalizes important features of current legal practice. The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Yale University. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefan Bechtold & Felix Höffler, 2011. "An Economic Analysis of Trade-Secret Protection in Buyer-Seller Relationships," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 137-158.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:27:y::i:1:p:137-158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jleo/ewp020
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:27:y::i:1:p:137-158. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jleo .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.