The devastating 7.8 earthquake that recently struck Nepal caused untold damage to buildings and has killed thousands of people, with many more missing. Following the devastation, the usual influx of aid began, as did finger pointing over who was to blame for the devastation. However, what this catastrophe has revealed most clearly is the disparate ways in which countries respond to disasters. Read on to learn about the response to the Nepalese earthquake, and the various global responses to disasters.

Responding to a Disaster

Emergency Management

Disasters, natural and man made, have been around since the beginning of time. However, the response to these disasters has not always been the same, and methods have varied as widely as the civilizations that have suffered them.

In the United States for example, we have FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency). FEMA was founded in 1979 when five separate agencies that dealt with disasters consolidated into one. Although it perhaps best known now for its poor handling of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, it has served as the point agency for every natural disaster the United States has dealt with since its inception.

Emergency Management Cycle

While the methods for emergency management vary, one of the commonly accepted tools is the emergency management cycle. The cycle’s origins go back to the 1930s when phases were first used to describe the ideal response to a disaster. The cycle gained its central place in the emergency management lexicon in 1979 when FEMA was created by President Jimmy Carter following recommendations from the National Governors Association, and versions have now expanded to other nations. This cycle is generally broken into three or four parts, although newer variations can include more steps. Usually the four steps are mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. You can see an example here.

The first two phases, mitigation and preparedness, actually occur before the potential disaster strikes. In the preparedness and mitigation phases a country plans for a potential disaster through steps such as developing evacuation plans, raising awareness and improving current infrastructure.

Once the disaster actually strikes, there’s a response section of the cycle. During this time, emergency management workers attempt to rescue people, provide basic services, and prevent any further damage. The final phase is recovery. In this final stage, once the disaster has passed, authorities go to work returning basic services to full operational capabilities. Additionally, infrastructure and other institutions that were damaged during the devastation are rebuilt.

While these distinctions seem clear, steps often overlap and become blurred, further complicating the process. In addition, it’s important to remember that these steps apply equally to both man-made and natural disasters. However, maintaining an appropriate balance of preparedness for the two types is important, otherwise one can become neglected at the expense of the other. A chilling example is the focus on defending against terrorism in the United States that left other shortcomings unnoticed. Critics claim this led to an underfunding of the levee system in New Orleans, which ultimately failed during Hurricane Katrina and had devastating results.

The Finger Pointers and the 20/20 Crowd

Unfortunately not every country has such a system or even a plan in place, including Nepal. These programs are very expensive. For example, in 2015 FEMA’s requested budget was $10.4 billion. To put that into context, Nepal’s entire GDP for 2013, the most recent year available from the World Bank, was only $19.3 billion. While no one expects Nepal to have an agency or program on the scale of FEMA given the lower population and wealth gap between it and U.S., in the wake of this disaster, concerns have arisen that the nation was unprepared.

These considerations did not stop the criticism from pouring about the failure of the Nepalese government. These criticisms have come from several high profile sources, including numerous relief agencies, namely the United Nations. Criticisms range from insufficient infrastructure to the difficulty aid groups have delivering supplies to those who need them. Despite the disaster, many protective tariffs are still in place, making it difficult to distribute goods. There are also concerns over widespread corruption and the reported looting of supply convoys by authorities who want to disperse the aid along ethnic lines.

These criticisms should not be entirely surprising given Nepal’s governmental history. The country only just began recovering from a civil war in 2006, which had lasted ten years. That conflict pitted the newly established democratic government against Maoist insurgents. Since the end of the civil war, there have been a succession of ineffectual governments who have been unable to create any sort of a unified front. For example, in January 2015, the current government was unable to agree on changes to its constitution because of political infighting.  The video below depicts many of the issues facing Nepal’s relief efforts:

International Community

When countries such as Nepal and others suffer a horrendous disaster, the international community usually steps up to aid them in their suffering. While variations of aid can be separated into many different branches, the two clearest distinctions are financial and direct intervention.

Financial Assistance

While not every country has an emergency response team to spare to help in a disaster zone, many can offer another valuable commodity: money. As of April 28^th 60 million dollars in financial assistance had already been pledged to the earthquake ravaged area. This type of giving is not surprising, especially following natural disasters such as earthquakes. In fact two other examples, the deadly 2013 typhoon in the Philippines, and the 2008 cyclone in Myanmar (Burma) illustrate that in circumstances such as these, it is not uncommon for the aid a country receives to as much as quintuple from one year to the next.

Although this is good news for Nepal, it may not be enough. While financial pledges can be easily won in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, the ability to continue to elicit them tends to fade as the story does from the headlines. Costs to repair the damage in Nepal have been estimated to be as much as five billion dollars. This massive undertaking is especially difficult for a nation like Nepal whose GDP, as previously mentioned, is only around 20 billion total each year, with a significant portion of that coming from now-lost tourist revenue.

In addition to these considerations, a working paper on the political economy of disaster preparedness by Charles Cohen and Eric Werker of the Harvard Business School also raises additional considerations. While money is useful in dealing with a disaster, giving away large sums reduces the incentive of a government to be adequately prepared in the first place. According to the study, rich countries as well as poor would be better off if more aid was provided for preparedness than response–it’s smarter to be proactive than reactive.

Concerns also abound over a dishonest government stealing aid money. In some cases, leaders want to reward their constituents first in order to maintain their good graces. Thus, it is also imperative in these types of situations to have a decentralized aid distribution system as much as possible. The video below provides some dos and don’ts in regards to helping following a disaster:

Physical Intervention

Another means to assist an ailing nation is through direct assistance by countries and private organizations. In the case of Nepal, this aid can be divided into three sub-categories. First, countries such as Japan and Australia sent experts and aid teams to help recovery. Relief organizations such as the Red Cross provided money and experts to help, basically serving as microcosms of the nations they represent. Lastly corporations such as Coca-Cola and Kellogg provided bottled water and food to satiate survivors whose access to basic goods may have vanished in the wake of the disaster.

Like financial assistance, direct intervention can also have drawbacks. An example of this comes from the 2010 Haitian earthquake. In that case, relief efforts were hampered and stagnated due to an inefficient infrastructure in place. The United States took full control of the response efforts, at one point legally taking possession of the main airport in the capital Port-au-Prince during the relief efforts. However, subsequent American prioritizing of its own relief planes over other nations’ led to an international row that threatened to divert focus from the main crisis as hand. The accompanying video depicts the controversy:

The Wealth of Nations

Additionally the acceptance of aid either through financial aid or direct intervention can also be influenced by the existing wealth of a nation. For example, while Nepal is basically dependent on other countries for assistance, richer nations who are less beholden may refuse aid when it is offered. A prime example is the United States, which politely declined nearly one billion dollars in aid from allies following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. While part of this was due to government inefficiency in distributing assistance, most offers were simply declined out of hand.

The U.S. declined most of the aid because, while it was adept at distributing aid to other countries, it was less skilled at dispensing aid within its own.  Thus rather than accept more aid that would often spoil or remain unclaimed, it instead declined many offers.  While this stagnation is criticized in other countries as a result of underdeveloped agencies, in the U.S. it was accepted because the U.S. is perceived as being a more capable nation due to its relative wealth.

Conclusion

Although countries such as Nepal and Haiti may serve as examples of how not to handle a disaster, there is no telling how any nation will respond once it actually experiences one. The prime example here is the United States. Even with its large bureaucracy dedicated to disaster relief and readiness, with an equally large budget, the U.S. has repeatedly been accused of being unprepared.

There are numerous examples of these failings, perhaps the two most glaring in recent memory are Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy. Hurricane Katrina essentially wiped out one of the most historic cities in the US, New Orleans, while also killing over a 1000 people and causing over $135 billion dollars in damage. Hurricane Sandy saw a lower fatality count, approximately 100 dead, but saw major parts of eastern states such as New York and New Jersey effected to the point of $50 billion dollars in damages.

Disasters, whether they are man made or natural, can strike anywhere, anytime. While some nations, either through financial means or previous experience are more prepared than others, ultimately no nation is ever ready for something as deadly as Nepal’s earthquake or a massive hurricane. This is a global issue, and one that has no easy answer.

Resources

Primary

FEMA: The Four Phases of Emergency Management

World Bank: Nepal

Ottawa County Sheriffs’ Office: Four Phases of Emergency Management

Central Intelligence Agency: World Factbook Nepal

Additional

Time: These are the Five Facts That Explain Nepal’s Devastating Earthquake

Brookings: Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Management Keeping a Proper Balance

MNMK: Disaster Management – A Theoretical Approach

VOA: Nepal Officials Slammed Over Aid Response

Fierce Homeland Security: 2015 Budget Request

Harvard Business School: The Political Economy of Natural Disasters

CNN Money: Nepal Earthquake Donations, Who’s Sending What

Vanderbilt Center for Transportation Research: The Phases of Emergency Management

Guardian: US Accused of Annexing Airport as Squabbling Hinders Aid Effort in Haiti

Washington Post: Most Katrina Aid from Overseas went Unclaimed

The Data Center: Fact for Features Katrina Impact

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Do Nations Respond When Disaster Strikes? appeared first on Law Street.

The Super Bowl is one of those traditions that I don’t fully comprehend but take part in anyway. I am not particularly fond of football, but the commercials are always entertaining and the half-time show is always either the “blown away” or the “that was painful” kind of fun to watch.

So this year I picked up the hot wings and spinach dip, opened a beer, and sat down to watch the game. Or, rather, live tweet the commercials and play Trivia Crack the rest of the time.

I cried during the Budweiser commercial, predictably, and laughed when Liam Neeson appeared in a Clash of Clans ad (#SconeForLiam), then nearly cheered when I saw a commercial I recognized from a little feminine hygiene company called Always.

Ad spots during the Super Bowl are the most expensive of the year due to the record-setting viewership numbers, and in the last few years many companies that can afford such commercials have used their air time to address big issues–whether meaning to or not.

Who can forget the 2014 Coca-Cola commercial that caused such controversy, simply because “America the Beautiful” was sung in several different languages? It brought attention to the ignorance of some United States citizens who said things like “Speak American” when the United States doesn’t even have an official language.

The commercial has now been viewed more than 12 million times and became an advertisement for freedom.

Hopefully, the Always commercial will do the same for gender equality.

I first saw the commercial after it aired in June 2014, featuring men and women and a young boy demonstrating what it is to fight or run “like a girl.” Without even thinking about it, they demonstrate the actions weakly. The show that “like a girl” or “girly” becomes synonymous with “less” and “weak.”

Then, young girls–age ten and below–demonstrate what it means to them to run and fight like a girl, and the result is inspiring. Watch the full length video below for yourself.

As the video shares, during and after puberty, girls become discouraged and are demeaned because of their gender. It does not have to be that way. Society has turned “like a girl” into a joke and an insult. Society has the power to change that.

In the short time since the commercial aired during the game, #LikeAGirl has begun trending on Twitter, where thousands of men and women have joined forces against those who would make fun of being female.

My vote is still #LikeAGirl for best #SuperBowlAds – what is everyone else thinking?

— Angie Ahrens (@angieahrens) February 2, 2015

Boys might make fun of that #LikeAGirl commercial, but it’s 100% true & I’m so glad that was finally publicized — Sydney Carpenter (@Sydney_Grace57) February 2, 2015

in the future, i hope that people don’t need commercials to remind us of the injustice prevalent in society #LikeAGirl

— danielle (@DanieFreezee) February 2, 2015

You go girls. And boys.

And to those people making fun of #LikeAGirl, or somehow turning it into a Meninist (a.k.a. why is that even a thing?) argument–that commercial showed up during a four-hour broadcast dedicated to being male. You can’t let girls have one minute?

In conclusion, Katy Perry riding in on a mechanical tiger then flying out on a shooting star was pretty awesome too, but the Always commercial gets my vote for best Super Bowl moment.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Super Bowl Wrap Up: “Like A Girl” is the Best Moment appeared first on Law Street.

Trade secrets are pieces of information that businesses or companies use to gain some sort of competitive advantage. In the United States, we have trade secret laws that allow companies to protect this valuable type of information from being stolen by other companies or individuals. Read on to learn everything you need to know about trade secrets, the laws that protect them, and the arguments for and against these protections.

What Are Trade Secrets?

Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, a trade secret is defined as:

Information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable through appropriate means by other persons who might obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

Some well-known tangible examples of trade secrets include:

• The recipe for Mrs. Fields Chocolate Chip Cookies
• The New York Times bestsellers’ list methodology
• The WD-40 formula
• The Twinkies recipe
• The recipe for McDonald’s Special Sauce
• The Coca-Cola recipe
• Google’s algorithm

Less tangible examples of trade secrets include consumer information or lists. Each of those secrets have made their corresponding products incredibly popular, but should they fall into the hands of competitors, they would lose their competitive advantage.

 What are Trade Secret Laws?

Trade secrets are protected by federal law, state law, and contracts between businesses and employees or associates.  This triple layer of protection differentiates them from, and in some cases makes them more effective than, patent laws. Trade secret law applies to a much wider range of information than other forms of intellectual property (IP) law, such as patents. Unlike patent protection, which expires after twenty years, trade secret protection does not expire.  Trade secret protection does not need to consist of information that is defensible by other IP laws.  Even if information does not qualify for patent, copyright, or trademark protection, it can still qualify for trade secret protection. A big, valuable difference between trade secrets and patents is how they’re disseminated to the public. A patented piece of information is owned by the patent holder; they release it into the public and in return get to profit off of it for as long as they own that patent. A trade secret stays secret, and gives the company its competitive value.

Trade secret protection, however, is not applied to information that is common knowledge or is publicly available. For example, if a telemarketing company used the entire phone book as a potential customer list, the company could not claim trade secret protection over the contents of the phone book. Moreover, unlike patents, trade secret protection can be bypassed if the information is obtained independently of the owner of the secret e.g. through reverse engineering or independent or accidental discovery.  The protection cannot be circumvented through improper means such as industrial espionage or misappropriation.

Perpetrators of misappropriation of trade secrets can be subject to federal and state civil and criminal liabilities; however, a company must be able to demonstrate that it undertook reasonable methods of protecting the alleged trade secrets in order for trade secret protective legislation to apply.  If the company cannot show that it undertook reasonable measures to protect the information, then it can lose its trade secret rights even if it is illegally obtained.

The Uniform Trade Secrets Act 

The Uniform Trade Secrets Act was created in 1979 and updated in 1985 in an attempt to create consistent American law across state borders. It was written on the heels of a Supreme Court decision — Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp. — that legitimized the use of trade secret laws. After that court decision, many states created their own versions; however, given that many American companies operate across state lines, it’s understandable why consistency was desired.

As of 2013, 47 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands adopted the UTSA, the only exceptions being New York, Massachusetts, and Texas. Those states have their own laws that provide trade secret protections.

In addition to protecting the trade secrets of companies, the UTSA puts remedies in place for when the laws are breached. These include injunctive relief: essentially a court-ordered prevention from a company using its competitor’s trade secret it obtained, as well as provisions allowing the payment of damages.

What are the benefits of trade secret laws?

Proponents of trade secret protection argue that the law recognizes that a company’s realm of economically valuable information extends beyond patentable and copyrightable content. This gives companies protection from unfair competition. It also alleviates companies’ fears that former employees can weaken their competitive position in the market by working for competitors or selling information. Unlike patents, trade secret protection has no registration costs, takes effect immediately, avoids procedural legal encumbrances, and lasts as long as the company needs.

Trade secret laws also promote collaboration, as strange as that may sound. If two companies embark on some sort of research mission together, they are more likely to be forthcoming and fully collaborative if they know that their confidential information is protected by law.

The Downsides of Trade Secret Laws

Opponents of trade secret protection argue that it gives businesses far too much power. Since the protection lasts until the secrets are discovered, the public’s use of beneficial innovations and freedom of information is restricted in the service of individual profits. Contractual trade secret restrictions can harm employees’ employment availability because the confidentiality and non-compete requirements remain with them after they change employers. These employees are limited in where they are able to work after changing jobs and limited in the knowledge and skills they can employ at any subsequent employment they find.

Case Study: Coca-Cola

The formula for Coca-Cola is one of the most famously sought-after trade secrets in the world. Coke actually loves the mystery surrounding its formula and tries to hype the public up for publicity and marketing reasons:

The history behind the Coca-Cola formula is fascinating, and makes it the perfect example of a trade secret. Starting in 1887, one of the first presidents of the company, Asa Chandler, demanded that no one ever write down the formula again for fear it could be stolen. According to the company, at any given time only two individuals actually know the formula. It is passed down in a ritualized manner, and those two individuals never travel together in case anything tragic ever happens.

New Horizons in Trade Secret Laws

As the world becomes increasingly globalized and the internet is an increasingly important part of the business landscape, trade secret laws are seeing some changes. Trade secret theft is much easier when companies have access to hackers and other tools of corporate espionage. Also, our companies have become not just fluid across state borders, but across international borders as well. American companies are sometimes worried that international competitors, who aren’t necessarily held to the same laws as American companies, will gain hold of valuable trade secrets.

Action in Congress 

In light of these concerns, American lawmakers have attempted to strengthen trade secret protections. Earlier this year, two bills were introduced in the House (H.R. 5233: “Trade Secret Protection Act of 2014”) and in the Senate (S. 2267: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2014.) Both of these bills would create a private federal civil remedy option for companies whose trade secrets have been stolen.

International Action

China, now one of the United States’ most important global trade partners, has attempted to expand its trade secret protections. It is currently working on a trade secret law — it’s in draft status right now — but it’s part of a larger project that China is working on to expand its competition law protections. This action came after the United States had strong disagreements and legal action against China over the possible stealing of trade secrets:

The European Union is also working on strengthening trade secret protection laws. In May 2014, the EU clarified its position on trade secrets, and committed to making consistent laws throughout member countries. A press release from the EU published last winter read:

There are substantial differences in the laws in place in EU countries on protection against trade secret misappropriation. Some countries have no specific laws on the issue. Businesses find it difficult to understand and access the systems of other Member States and, whenever they become victims of misappropriation of confidential know-how, they are reluctant to bring civil court proceedings as they are not sure the confidentiality of their trade secrets will be upheld by the courts. The current fragmented system has a negative effect on cross-border cooperation between business and research partners and is a key obstacle to using the EU single market as an enabler of innovation and economic growth.

Technology and Trade Secrets 

Another new frontier in the issue of trade secret protections is protection for technological innovations, such as technology design concepts. Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory Inc. was heard in California earlier this year. In this case, a small company called Altavion claimed that a process it had invented to authenticate documents had been stolen by one of its competitors, and that the process was a trade secret. The court ruled in Altavion’s favor.

Conclusion

Trade secrets are an incredibly important part of the American business structure. Many of the United States’ most well-known companies and products have some involvement in trade secrets. While the U.S. has taken admirable actions to protect those secrets, there are constantly new frontiers in the issue, including the advents of technology and globalization. As those topics expand, we should expect to see trade secret protections expand as well.

Resources

Primary

Uniform Trade Secrets Act: Text

European Commission: Commission Proposes Rules to Help Protect Against the Theft of Confidential Business Information

Additional 

Marquette IP Law Review: Why Do We Have Trade Secrets

Nature: The Good and Bad of Trade Secrets

IP Watchdog: Trade Secrets and Employee Mobility

WIPO: Patents or Trade Secrets?

Unemed: What You Need to Know About Patents and Trade Secrets

King Hall IP Law Assocation: History of Trade Secret Law

Uniform Law Commission: Trade Secrets Act Summary

PeterToren: Criminal Trade Secret laws

Listverse: How Trade Secrets Are Kept

TMS: Federal Trade Secrets Crimes

Hahn Loeser: Does Trade Secret Law also provide patent protection?

Journal of Economic Perspectives: Some Economics of Trade Secret Law

Association of Corporate Counsel: New Texas Trade Secret Law Helps Big Businesses

Beck Reed Riden: Does the Government Favor Businesses With Trade Secrets?

JD Supra: Technology Design Concepts Can be Trade Secrets

Managing IP: Trade Secrets Get Sexy

Buffalo Business First: Looming Changes in Trade Secret Protection

Time: Is this the real thing? Coca-Cola’s Secret Formula “Revealed”

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trade Secret Laws: Competitive Advantages at Work appeared first on Law Street.