• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Kotaku has been blacklisted by Bethesda Softworks and Ubisoft

ScatheZombie

Member
Apr 5, 2014
2,573
0
0
California
Because it sets a precedence of, "do what we say on our terms of controlled information, or you get nothing at all". It is a slippery slope for sure. And a lot of the big media sites have been hype and PR machines for them for quite a long time. That is not journalism or news.

A slippery slope that has existed for over two decades...
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
44,639
88,554
1,355
A slippery slope that has existed for over two decades...

Of course, hence why this article brings that more in light.

So the answers that company reps were giving in interviews weren't controlled messages?

Yes, but if you ask questions to catch them off guard (instead of your generic back of the box hype), intelligent readers can spot BS PR speak easier. I know I have plenty of times. Where most large sites read like a marketing piece.
 

Silent Chief

Member
Oct 17, 2014
3,363
16
330
I think my main point here is that it's worth assessing whether or not any real damage is being done. I think there are two different points that are worth considering.

1.) Can a leak ever be damaging?

2.) Should information about a game only be disseminated in a PR-approved fashion?

1. Yes
2. No

And yet, is it relevant?
In a perfect world every publisher is blacklisting every news outlet and nothing I read is a regurgitated PR announcement.
Or I know who is independent and who is a propaganda machine.
I can live with that.

I remember when review site were proud of having bought the reviewed games.
Those were the reviews I trusted.
 

Mad Season

Banned
Nov 12, 2014
4,653
1
0
I think the real question is whether or not leaks actually affect game sales negatively like marketing teams and internet idiots seem to think.

And they don't. It's a specious claim. Just look at Fallout 4. Bethesda's investors, ip values or sales figures were not harmed by the leak.

Someone got their panties in a ruffle, not their wallet emptied.
You have zero proof of this claim
 

Mass_Pincup

Banned
Feb 25, 2014
8,154
0
0
Paris
Because it sets a precedence of, "do what we say on our terms of controlled information, or you get nothing at all". It is a slippery slope for sure. And a lot of the big media sites have been hype and PR machines for them for quite a long time. That is not journalism or news.

It's not really a precedence since it has always been this way, I remember an instance where Sony blacklisted gamekult, a french gaming website because they felt that Heavy Rain didn't receive a good enough review (6/10). It wasn't just questions or interview but advertising on the website as well, and that's one of the biggest gaming website in France.

It has always been that way and most if not all the websites were on board with it. I'm just happy to see some of them publish meaningful story instead of the same interview about a this game is going to revolutionize the industry etc...
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
44,639
88,554
1,355
It's not really a precedence since it has always been this way, I remember an instance where Sony blacklisted gamekult, a french gaming website because they felt that Heavy Rain didn't receive a good enough review (6/10). It wasn't just questions or interview but advertising on the website as well, and that's one of the biggest gaming website in France.

It has always been that way and most if not all the websites were on board with it. I'm just happy to see some of them publish meaningful story instead of the same interview about a this game is going to revolutionize the industry etc...

I understand this. As I said above, this article makes it more apparent and sheds a little more light for those not aware this happens, and why.
 

Zornack

Member
Jun 15, 2013
4,413
0
355
www.neogaf.com
You can play by a publisher's rules or you can leak information. I think both can be beneficial to the industry but one outlet isn't going to be doing both simultaneously.
 

Teeth

Member
May 7, 2014
2,756
1
300
Yes, but if you ask questions to catch them off guard (instead of your generic back of the box hype), intelligent readers can spot BS PR speak easier. I know I have plenty of times. Where most large sites read like a marketing piece.

If you've "spotted the BS PR speak" you didn't need the answer anyway. You already had your mind made up. You wanted the gotcha moment.

I understand this. As I said above, this article makes it more apparent and sheds a little more light for those not aware this happens, and why.

The real trick is when you realize that the press doesn't need any of the access provided by the companies at all.
 

Mr_Antimatter

Member
Feb 5, 2013
5,927
0
0
Austin
1. Yes
2. No

And yet, is it relevant?
In a perfect world every publisher is blacklisting every news outlet and nothing I read is a regurgitated PR announcement.
Or I know who is independent and who is a propaganda machine.
I can live with that.

I remember when review site were proud of having bought the reviewed games.
Those were the reviews I trusted.

Blame folks who wanted reviews before game's release. The only way to do that is review copies provided early.

With pre-orders offering all kinds of DLC, incentives, limited runs, etc, more and more are being pushed to day 1 sales, and well, having to buy all review copies means no day 1 reviews, and certainly no pre-release reviews.
 

Silent Chief

Member
Oct 17, 2014
3,363
16
330
Man, there's just so much wrong with this comic, first and foremost being that none of it reflects what actually happened in any of these cases. As if we criticized the Fallout 4 casting scripts or Assassin's Creed Victory marketing shots -- the ones we didn't get from the publishers in question, but from sources who hoped they would be shared.

You totally need to read the text that goes with the comic.
It talks about bowing and eating shit.
Because you're totally missing the point.

I'll add to that. Too often the news is about the reporter.
There's thousands of streams going out now. Enjoy the competition.
 
Jun 7, 2004
14,567
1
1,470
You have zero proof of this claim

This is really rather silly. Fallout 4 is on pace to be one of the top selling games of the year and is outselling all of its predecessors by a fair margin. I think it's far more reasonable to assume that sales haven't been negatively impacted than to assume that they could have been much higher maybe. And citing that such a claim is unprovable is ultimately meaningless. Any such theorizing is unprovable.

Until someone successfully invents time travel and I can go back in time and prevent Kotaku from leaking info about Fallout 4 and compare sales in that alternate reality to this one, you're right. I can't prove they wouldn't be better. But does that mean it's always unfair to speculate?
 

Nanashrew

Banned
Feb 16, 2014
17,263
0
0
33
Arlington Texas
1. Yes
2. No

And yet, is it relevant?
In a perfect world every publisher is blacklisting every news outlet and nothing I read is a regurgitated PR announcement.
Or I know who is independent and who is a propaganda machine.
I can live with that.

I remember when review site were proud of having bought the reviewed games.
Those were the reviews I trusted.

How do you feel about critic screenings of movies before release?
 

Silent Chief

Member
Oct 17, 2014
3,363
16
330
Blame folks who wanted reviews before game's release. The only way to do that is review copies provided early.

With pre-orders offering all kinds of DLC, incentives, limited runs, etc, more and more are being pushed to day 1 sales, and well, having to buy all review copies means no day 1 reviews, and certainly no pre-release reviews.

If you don't open the case, you can still return it.
 

Apollo Cree

Member
Oct 27, 2013
582
0
0
How do you feel about critic screenings of movies before release?
The fact that they're a critic can't be overlooked. I doubt they would be invited to these screenings if they constantly leaked information and attempted to dig up dirty dealings of the movie companies.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Jun 18, 2009
62,433
10
1,115
This is really rather silly. Fallout 4 is on pace to be one of the top selling games of the year and is outselling all of its predecessors by a fair margin. I think it's far more reasonable to assume that sales haven't been negatively impacted than to assume that they could have been much higher maybe. And citing that such a claim is unprovable is ultimately meaningless. Any such theorizing is unprovable.

Until someone successfully invents time travel and I can go back in time and prevent Kotaku from leaking info about Fallout 4 and compare sales in that alternate reality to this one, you're right. I can't prove they wouldn't be better. But does that mean it's always unfair to speculate?

I mean at this point some people are basically making the "piracy = damages for lost sales" argument
 

Visceir

Member
Mar 20, 2007
4,513
0
0
The real trick is when you realize that the press doesn't need any of the access provided by the companies at all.

Not sure what exactly you meant, but I thought I'd check how many views some of those "IGN First" videos have that they've gotten as exclusives and some of them have upwards of 2.5 mil views on youtube.

Early access and exclusive content still is highly desirable and one of the few things that still distinguish the big videogaming sites from the youtubers.
 

plasmawave

Member
Aug 28, 2013
11,230
375
640
This is really rather silly. Fallout 4 is on pace to be one of the top selling games of the year and is outselling all of its predecessors by a fair margin. I think it's far more reasonable to assume that sales haven't been negatively impacted than to assume that they could have been much higher maybe. And citing that such a claim is unprovable is ultimately meaningless. Any such theorizing is unprovable.

Until someone successfully invents time travel and I can go back in time and prevent Kotaku from leaking info about Fallout 4 and compare sales in that alternate reality to this one, you're right. I can't prove they wouldn't be better. But does that mean it's always unfair to speculate?

Outright saying it has no negative impact on sales is not speculating.
 

nephilimdj

Member
Jan 31, 2011
5,842
57
705
Straya
A journal is taking the side of journalists?

No wonder newspaper sales are down every year.

You mean a games journalists taking the side of a games journalists?
I have a good friend who was a political journalist who use to have to publish a ton of articles under a alias for political reasons, article is way more fluff then the real issues journalists can face.
 

Teeth

Member
May 7, 2014
2,756
1
300
This is really rather silly. Fallout 4 is on pace to be one of the top selling games of the year and is outselling all of its predecessors by a fair margin. I think it's far more reasonable to assume that sales haven't been negatively impacted than to assume that they could have been much higher maybe. And citing that such a claim is unprovable is ultimately meaningless. Any such theorizing is unprovable.

Until someone successfully invents time travel and I can go back in time and prevent Kotaku from leaking info about Fallout 4 and compare sales in that alternate reality to this one, you're right. I can't prove they wouldn't be better. But does that mean it's always unfair to speculate?

Let's speculate then.

We need some ground rules so I'll lay some things out. We have to assume that:
1) Marketing is effective. If you want, we can dispute this, but it'll be a tough slog postulating that giant companies spend literally double a game's budget on marketing just for shits and giggles.
2) Marketing is performed by people who are effective at marketing. This is the postulation that the companies that invest a hundred million dollars into a marketing plan are investing that money into people and the plans of people who theoretically know what they are doing. If they didn't know, didn't have any experience, or didn't have any data about what they were doing, you'd think that on yearly iterative franchises, the companies would be able to weed out the less effective marketers.
3) That these marketers, with their experience, deem that effective release of information is, to them, part of the marketing plan.


Couldn't we then theorize that the marketing plan being carried out effectively has a positive effect on sales? Since the marketers believe it does, the general idea is that they know what they are doing, and that marketing as a whole is effective.

Not sure what exactly you meant, but I thought I'd check how many views some of those "IGN First" videos have that they've gotten as exclusives and some of them have upwards of 2.5 mil views on youtube.

Early access and exclusive content still is highly desirable and one of the few things that still distinguish the big videogaming sites from the youtubers.


That's advertising, not journalism. IGN is hosting an ad for profit.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Jun 18, 2009
62,433
10
1,115
Bullshit.

We get rumored directing choices, casting news, script leaks, all the goddan time. "I have it on good authority that Person X is in strong contention for role Y" is like a third of all film news. Hell, here, this piece from over a year ago discusses script details from Episode VII. That's entirely on par with "the next Assassins Creed is in development and takes place in London"

Its insane that "a game is being made" is a secret publishers are absolutely neurotic about covering up.
 
Jun 7, 2004
14,567
1
1,470
Let's speculate then.

We need some ground rules so I'll lay some things out. We have to assume that:
1) Marketing is effective. If you want, we can dispute this, but it'll be a tough slog postulating that giant companies spend literally double a game's budget on marketing just for shits and giggles.
2) Marketing is performed by people who are effective at marketing. This is the postulation that the companies that invest a hundred million dollars into a marketing plan are investing that money into people and the plans of people who theoretically know what they are doing. If they didn't know, didn't have any experience, or didn't have any data about what they were doing, you'd think that on yearly iterative franchises, the companies would be able to weed out the less effective marketers.
3) That these marketers, with their experience, deem that effective release of information is, to them, part of the marketing plan.


Couldn't we then theorize that the marketing plan being carried out effectively has a positive effect on sales? Since the marketers believe it does, the general idea is that they know what they are doing, and that marketing as a whole is effective.

I've never stated that marketing isn't effective. I certainly think it can be very effective when done well. However, it's something that you're in for the long haul. Unless the leak generates negative buzz, your job hasn't necessarily been undermined.

Again, I circle back to noting the game's phenomenal sales. What seems more reasonable to you? Conceding that leaking that basic information ahead of marketing's schedule did little to no long term harm, or postulating that it irreparably ruined their plan and that this game might be pushing GTA V numbers if not for Kotaku revealing that this game we figured was in the works was indeed in the works.

I really fail to see what's controversial about any of this. If the game was pushing underwhelming numbers, I think we'd have to consider a myriad of things here. Maybe the leaks could be considered in there for assessing what went wrong. But the numbers are great. And you can't even look at other factors like "selling to a higher install base" or "better reviews" because neither of those things are true.
 

Parley

Banned
Dec 14, 2009
291
0
0
Atlanta
I don't like Kotaku. I don't read the website anymore.

I do agree with their stance that if doing some investigative journalism earns them a blacklist that is good and Kotaku doesn't need to pander to big companies. It is a crap argument that a website should win the favor of a publisher at the cost of good journalism. A website should also not be surprised to be blacklisted. It comes with the territory.
 

Teeth

Member
May 7, 2014
2,756
1
300
I've never stated that marketing isn't effective. I certainly think it can be very effective when done well. However, it's something that you're in for the long haul. Unless the leak generates negative buzz, your job hasn't necessarily been undermined.

Again, I circle back to noting the game's phenomenal sales. What seems more reasonable to you? Conceding that leaking that basic information ahead of marketing's schedule did little to no long term harm, or postulating that it irreparably ruined their plan and that this game might be pushing GTA V numbers if not for Kotaku revealing that this game we figured was in the works was indeed in the works.

I really fail to see what's controversial about any of this. If the game was pushing underwhelming numbers, I think we'd have to consider a myriad of things here. Maybe the leaks could be considered in there for assessing what went wrong. But the numbers are great. And you can't even look at other factors like "selling to a higher install base" or "better reviews" because neither of those things are true.

Something can always sell better.

My personal opinion? I don't think the leak hurt Fallout 4's sales. But I don't think Bethesda is cutting off ties because Kotaku leaked that Fallout 4 was being worked on. I think they did it because they leaked the script. I feel like Beth is all pissy because they feel like Kotaku "went too far" with their info leak rather than the leak itself.

Not that I don't think Kotaku should have done it.

I also think that, having seen the how this stuff works from the dev side myself, and reading Zombie's posts about it from the AAA side, there was likely actual money lost by Ubisoft on the Syndicate leak. That's grounds for some sour feelings.
 

AgeEighty

Member
Aug 2, 2014
3,696
1
0
www.andytatnall.com
I don't like Kotaku. I don't read the website anymore.

I do agree with their stance that if doing some investigative journalism earns them a blacklist that is good and Kotaku doesn't need to pander to big companies. It is a crap argument that a website should win the favor of a publisher at the cost of good journalism. A website should also not be surprised to be blacklisted. It comes with the territory.

Right, but "surprise" isn't why they are talking about it.
 

DICKS AHOY

Banned
Nov 4, 2010
9,638
0
0
After how infamously awful the Penny-Arcade Report was for the short time it existed, are Gabe and Tycho remotely in a position to talk about games journalism?
 

xch1n

Member
Apr 15, 2014
166
0
370
The fact that they're a critic can't be overlooked. I doubt they would be invited to these screenings if they constantly leaked information and attempted to dig up dirty dealings of the movie companies.

But isn't that the case? I mean, newspapers, websites hire critics AND investigative journalists. And the writings of one segment do not cause the other to get blacklisted/removed from screenings. In the case of film, publications that critique an early showing also report on contracts, casting rumors, and director PR gaffes. And so it ought to be in games.
 
Nov 7, 2007
1,977
307
1,215
I am shocked that so many people are defending Kotaku's actions as "good journalism." Their behavior is a textbook example of bad journalism, and it's the kind of thing you'd read about in an ethics class.

Even if Kotaku didn't break any NDAs or agreements with companies, it's a safe bet that they published information from individuals who did. If the people who are providing Kotaku with information are acting in bad faith or behaving in an unethical manner, then it's absolutely appropriate to blacklist them.

It's unethical (and not especially legal) to induce someone to reveal trade secrets they are legally obligated not to reveal. Moreover, if you obtain information and you have reason to believe that the person providing you with the information was not supposed to reveal it, it is considered a misappropriation under UTSA § 1.2.

In 2005, a judge ruled in favor of Apple in a case involving information that was leaked. The judge rightfully deemed that the "journalism" defense was largely irrelevant and explained:

"Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety, or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by public officials, the movants [defendants] are doing nothing more than feeding the public's desire for information."

Kotaku is on the wrong side of things here.
 

Corpekata

Banned
Jun 7, 2013
20,280
1
0
I am shocked that so many people are defending Kotaku's actions as "good journalism." Their behavior is a textbook example of bad journalism, and it's the kind of thing you'd read about in an ethics class.

Even if Kotaku didn't break any NDAs or agreements with companies, it's a safe bet that they published information from individuals who did. If the people who are providing Kotaku with information are acting in bad faith or behaving in an unethical manner, then it's absolutely appropriate to blacklist them.

It's unethical (and not especially legal) to induce someone to reveal trade secrets they are legally obligated not to reveal. Moreover, if you obtain information and you have reason to believe that the person providing you with the information was not supposed to reveal it, it is considered a misappropriation under UTSA § 1.2.

In 2005, a judge ruled in favor of Apple in a case involving information that was leaked. The judge rightfully deemed that the "journalism" defense was largely irrelevant and explained:

"Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety, or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by public officials, the movants [defendants] are doing nothing more than feeding the public's desire for information."

Kotaku is on the wrong side of things here.

You are shocked people aren't in line with you when you've now jumped to accusing them of manipulating the reveal of trade secrets and breaking the law?
 
Nov 7, 2007
1,977
307
1,215
You are shocked people aren't in line with you when you've now jumped to accusing them of manipulating the reveal of trade secrets and breaking the law?

Revealing trade secrets is illegal and unethical. It's not good journalism.

If you get information that you're not supposed to have OR if you get information from people who were not supposed to give it to you, then it is entirely unethical to publicize it. It's cut and dry. We are talking about trade secrets here! We are not talking about issues of health, safety, or public welfare. It IS shocking that people don't understand the difference.
 

Corpekata

Banned
Jun 7, 2013
20,280
1
0
Revealing trade secrets is illegal and unethical. It's not good journalism.

If you get information that you're not supposed to have OR if you get information from people who were not supposed to give it to you, then it is entirely unethical to publicize it. It's cut and dry. We are talking about trade secrets here! We are not talking about issues of health, safety, or public welfare. It IS shocking that people don't understand the difference.

Do all unannounced video games count as trade secrets?

Because it is strange to be so upset about this on a forum like this that is known for leaks.

Do you think users like Wario64 and Verendus deserve to be sued for their various leaks and info they post here? Pretty much every video game site on the planet has posted stuff before a publisher wants them to at one point or the other. Where exactly is the line drawn?
 

benny_a

extra source of jiggaflops
Apr 25, 2009
17,350
1
0
If you get information that you're not supposed to have OR if you get information from people who were not supposed to give it to you, then it is entirely unethical to publicize it. It's cut and dry. We are talking about trade secrets here!
Wow.

It's so mean of Kotaku for example to write about how predatory Zenimax's acquisition strategy is. Why does nobody think about poor Zenimax that can't exploit developers' ignorance. The modus operandi is a trade secret!
 

Rollo Lawson

Banned
Jun 11, 2008
5,300
0
0
hetero town
Agree with the sentiment that this comes with the territory. If you ask any major news outlet about being "blacklisted" you'll see Bethesda and Ubisoft aren't blazing any trails here. There are much bigger foes with much blacker lists ignoring much bigger outlets, you can bet on it
 

ScatheZombie

Member
Apr 5, 2014
2,573
0
0
California
Do all unannounced video games count as trade secrets?

Because it is strange to be so upset about this on a forum like this that is known for leaks.

Do you think users like Wario64 and Verendus deserve to be sued for their various leaks and info they post here? Pretty much every video game site on the planet has posted stuff before a publisher wants them to. Where exactly is the line drawn?

I'm sure you're very upset every time a thread pops up about an unannounced game.

Technically, yes, they do.

The argument is ever trickier than you imply. Because some publishers regularly 'leak' information about their products and projects on purpose to generate buzz even when they're unable (either via time constraints or contract constraints) to produce an official, prepared announcement.

That said, the line will always be drawn by the company in question - just as it is with copyright infringement and trademark violation. Some companies aggressively pursue everything that could even remotely be classified as such. Others don't care unless it's blatantly obvious. The same holds for leaks. 90% of leaks are largely meaningless and have no impact whatsoever on the company. But 10% of them can be damaging - not just from breaking the prepared announcement plan, but also monetarily if they void contracts and incur penalties to the publisher with their partners.
 

silvermember

Banned
Feb 16, 2014
2,502
0
0
Wow.

It's so mean of Kotaku to write about how predatory Zenimax's acquisition strategy is. Why does nobody think about poor Zenimax that can't exploit developers' ignorance. The modus operandi is a trade secret!
Don't feel too bad. A lot of gamers don't know what journalism actually is. They are used to PR puff pieces.
 

Silent Chief

Member
Oct 17, 2014
3,363
16
330
How do you feel about critic screenings of movies before release?

It's very different.

Critics get to see the entire movie. Maybe they get free popcorn? I don't think it matters.

Game journalists play some of the game. Publishers put embargoes so game journalists don't race to be the first one with the online review of the 200+ hours game.

Do you know anybody who's waiting on the reviews to decide if they'll go see Star Wars?

Kotaku leaks material because it generates clicks, not because it's their civic duty.
They are mad about being blacklisted because that takes clicks away from them, not because some moral wrong is being committed.

You can be the weasel that publish other people's emails.
You can be the leashed dog that get privileged info.
I don't think you can be both. The barking weasel won't get the treat.
 

Htown

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE
Feb 19, 2008
44,007
7
0
Revealing trade secrets is illegal and unethical. It's not good journalism.

If you get information that you're not supposed to have OR if you get information from people who were not supposed to give it to you, then it is entirely unethical to publicize it. It's cut and dry. We are talking about trade secrets here! We are not talking about issues of health, safety, or public welfare. It IS shocking that people don't understand the difference.

The existence of a game is not a trade secret, because there is no inherent economic value to its secrecy.

Now, if Kotaku was leaking the source code to a game or something, you might have an argument.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Jun 18, 2009
62,433
10
1,115
The existence of a game is not a trade secret, because there is no inherent economic value to its secrecy.

Now, if Kotaku was leaking the source code to a game or something, you might have an argument.

That's the most crazy part to me. All of this is an issue soley because of E3 press conferences and similar events, these companies just want the "hype" that comes from a cold reveal of Fallout 4 on stage or whatever
 

Liamc723

Member
Sep 18, 2013
5,496
0
0
Revealing trade secrets is illegal and unethical. It's not good journalism.

If you get information that you're not supposed to have OR if you get information from people who were not supposed to give it to you, then it is entirely unethical to publicize it. It's cut and dry. We are talking about trade secrets here! We are not talking about issues of health, safety, or public welfare. It IS shocking that people don't understand the difference.

It's not illegal in the slightest, you are simply wrong.
 

shootfast

Member
Aug 26, 2009
248
0
820
The existence of a game is not a trade secret, because there is no inherent economic value to its secrecy.

Now, if Kotaku was leaking the source code to a game or something, you might have an argument.

They revealed the plot, settings and characters of a game. It was more then the existence of the game.
 

Jackben

bitch I'm taking calls.
Feb 4, 2012
13,063
0
685
www.youtube.com
Revealing trade secrets is illegal and unethical. It's not good journalism.

If you get information that you're not supposed to have OR if you get information from people who were not supposed to give it to you, then it is entirely unethical to publicize it. It's cut and dry. We are talking about trade secrets here! We are not talking about issues of health, safety, or public welfare. It IS shocking that people don't understand the difference.
You literally have zero understanding of the terms you are using both in terms of U.S. law and in the context of this discussion.
 

shootfast

Member
Aug 26, 2009
248
0
820
still not a trade secret

In the U.S., a trade secret can be a number of things—devices, formulas, ideas, and processes—that give the owner of such a distinct market advantage. Trade Secrets can be movie scripts, customer lists, and special types of computer hardware. For this ­reason, the owner wants to have some protection to ensure that the public or competitors cannot get the trade secrets by improperly accessing files containing the secrets (that is, proprietary information) and stored in computers.

Elais, S. Trade Secret Law: Overview. [Online, 1998.] Marketing Today Website. http://www.marketingtoday.com/legal/tradesec.htm; Nolo, Inc. Trade Secrets Basic FAQ. [Online, 2002.] Nolo, Inc. Website. http://cobrands.business.findlaw.com/intellectual_ property/nolo/faq/90781CA8-0ECE-4E38-BF9E29F7A6DA5830.html#48637D5E-5443- 4BCB-BE711598E9369ACC.