IBP

Information about IBP

Published on December 12, 2007

Author: Chan

Source: authorstream.com

Content

IBP Predicts Trade Secret Case Outcomes:  IBP Predicts Trade Secret Case Outcomes Input: Current fact situation Output: Predicted outcome and explanation (Brüninghaus & Ashley ICAIL-03 ) IBP Domain Model:  IBP Domain Model Info-Trade-Secret Info-Misappropriated Information- Valuable Maintain- Secrecy Confidential- Relationship Improper- Means Info- Used and or and and Trade-Secret-Misappropriation F15 p Unique-Product F16 d Info-Reverse-Engineerable … F6 p Security-Measures F27 d Public-Disclosure F4 p Nondisclosure-Agreement F10 d Info-Disclosed-Outsiders F12 p Restricted-Disclosures F19 d No-Security-Measures F1 d Disclosure-In-Negotiations F21 p Knew-Info-Confidential … … F14 p Restricted- Materials-Used F25 d Reverse-Engineered … Factor Representation:  Factor Representation Factors: stereotypical fact patterns that strengthen/weaken plaintiff’s (p) legal claim vs. defendant (d) Examples from trade secret misappropriation law: Security-Measures: p stronger the more security measures it took to protect info. Agreed-Not-To-Disclose: p stronger to extent entered into nondisclosure agreement. Secrets-Disclosed-Outsiders: p stronger the fewer disclosures of info to outsiders. Outsider-Disclosures-Restricted: p stronger to extent disclosees restricted from disclosing info to others. Competitive-Advantage: p stronger the greater competitive advantage d gained. Disclosure-In-Negotiations: p stronger to extent it did not disclose secret to d in negotiations. Sources of IBP’s Domain Model:  Sources of IBP’s Domain Model Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Restatement of Torts Logical Structure of Trade Secrets Law “Trade secret” means information, [...] that: (i) derives independent economic value, [...] from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means [...] and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. One [...] is liable for trade secret misappropriation if (a) he discovered the secret by improper means, or (b) his disclosure or use constitutes a breach of confidence [...] Issue-Related Factors IRF IRF IRF IRF Factors in the Mason Problem:  Factors in the Mason Problem In 1980, a restaurant owner named Mason developed a combination of Jack Daniel's whiskey, Triple Sec, sweet and sour mix, and 7-Up to ease a sore throat. He promoted the drink, dubbed "Lynchburg Lemonade" for his restaurant, "Tony Mason's, Huntsville", served it in Mason jars and sold T-shirts. Mason told the recipe only to his bartenders and instructed them not to reveal the recipe to others. The drink was only mixed out of the customers' view. The drink comprised about one third of the sales of alcoholic drinks. Despite its extreme popularity, no other establishments had duplicated the drink, but experts claimed it could easily be duplicated. In 1982, Randle, a sales representative of the Jack Daniel's Distillery, visited Mason's restaurant and drank Lynchburg Lemonade. Mason disclosed part of the recipe to Randle in exchange, Mason claimed, for a promise that Mason and his band would be used in a sales promotion. Randle recalled having been under the impression that Mason's recipe was a "secret formula". Randle informed his superiors of the recipe and the drink's popularity. A year later, the Distillery began using the recipe to promote the drink in a national sales campaign. Mason did not participate in the promotion or receive other compensation. F6 Security-Measures p F21 Knew-Info- Confidential p F15 Unique-Product p F1 Disclosure-in- Negotiations d F16 Info-Reverse- Engineerable d Text: Factors: IBP Output for Mason:  IBP Output for Mason Prediction for MASON, which was won by ???   Factors favoring plaintiff: (F21 F15 F6)   Factors favoring defendant: (F16 F1) Issue raised in this case is SECURITY-MEASURES   Relevant factors in case: F6(P) PLAINTIFF. Issue raised in this case is CONFIDENTIAL-RELATIONSHIP Relevant factors in case: F1(D) F21(P) Theory testing has no clear outcome, try to explain away exceptions. Cases won by plaintiff:   BOEING (F1 F4 F6 F10 F12 F14 F21) BRYCE (F1 F4 F6 F18 F21)   DEN-TAL-EZ (F1 F4 F6 F21 F26)   DIGITAL-DEVELOPMENT (F1 F6 F8 F15 F18 F21)   FOREST-LABORATORIES (F1 F6 F15 F21)   GOLDBERG (F1 F10 F21 F27)     … Cases won by defendant:   ECOLOGIX (F1 F19 F21 F23) Trying to explain away the exceptions favoring DEFENDANT   ECOLOGIX can be explained away because of the unshared ko-factor(s) (F23 F19). Therefore, PLAINTIFF is favored. Issue raised in this case is INFO-VALUABLE   Relevant factors in case: F16(D) F15(P) Theory testing has no clear outcome, try to explain away exceptions. Cases won by plaintiff:   AMERICAN-CAN (F4 F6 F15 F16 F18)   HENRY-HOPE (F4 F6 F15 F16)   ILG-INDUSTRIES (F7 F10 F12 F15 F16 F21)   KAMIN (F1 F10 F16 F18 F15)   KG (F6 F14 F15 F16 F18 F21 F25) … Cases won by defendant:   NATIONAL-REJECTORS (F7 F10 F15 F16 F18 F19 F27) Trying to explain away the exceptions favoring DEFENDANT:   NATIONAL-REJECTORS can be explained away because of unshared ko-factor(s) (F27 F19). Therefore, PLAINTIFF is favored. Outcome of the issue-based analysis:    For issue CONFIDENTIAL-RELATIONSHIP, PLAINTIFF is favored.    For issue SECURITY-MEASURES, PLAINTIFF is favored.    For issue INFO-VALUABLE, PLAINTIFF is favored. => Predicted outcome for MASON is PLAINTIFF, which is correct. Evaluation of IBP Algorithm:  Evaluation of IBP Algorithm 148 cases in CATO database, plus 38 new cases Experiments run in leave-one-out cross-validation; Relevance tested with McNemar’s test Compare IBP with: Baseline: predict majority class Standard machine learning algorithms Prediction based on CATO/Hypo relevance criteria SMILE+IBP:  SMILE+IBP Case Text SMILE For each Factor, classifier learned from case texts IBP Hybrid CBR/ RBR system to predict outcome of case-based arguments Factors Prediction SMILE+IBP Predicting outcomes of cases input as texts… Overview of SMILE:  … Overview of SMILE SMILE - Classification Classifier for F1 Case text … F1 applies? F2 applies? F27 applies? Factors in case Break text into sentences Represent as RR, ProP or BOW Classifier for F2 Classifier for F27 SMILE – Training Break text into sentences Collect positive and negative examples for Fi Represent as RR, ProP or BOW For each Factor Fi (1 ≤ i ≤ 27) Learning Algorithm (Timbl, C4.5, Naïve Bayes) Marked-up case texts Improving SMILE+IBP:  Improving SMILE+IBP Compare SMILE+IBP to informed biased-coin baseline: Predict plaintiff wins with probability P(plaintiff wins) = |cases plaintiff won| / |cases in collection| p < .0001 Accuracy of SMILE+IBP: 0.634782609 Coverage of SMILE+IBP: 0.787671233 Accuracy of Biased-Coin-Baseline: 0.49 Coverage of Biased-Coin-Baseline: 1.0 When Human assigns Factors: Coverage of IBP: 0.99 Accuracy of IBP: 0.92

Related presentations


Other presentations created by Chan

10 Arthropod
04. 01. 2008
0 views

10 Arthropod

Chapter Six Fat Vitamins
05. 03. 2008
0 views

Chapter Six Fat Vitamins

Turkey Trivia game
26. 11. 2007
0 views

Turkey Trivia game

Identifying Failing Systems2
08. 11. 2007
0 views

Identifying Failing Systems2

Sponsorship Powerpoint
04. 12. 2007
0 views

Sponsorship Powerpoint

Hinduism my version
05. 12. 2007
0 views

Hinduism my version

TN Research
06. 12. 2007
0 views

TN Research

AFNORTH Briefing
31. 10. 2007
0 views

AFNORTH Briefing

speciaissuesmay12006
06. 11. 2007
0 views

speciaissuesmay12006

m220w04
07. 11. 2007
0 views

m220w04

GCSPNORO
06. 11. 2007
0 views

GCSPNORO

Jyoti Sagar IPR
23. 11. 2007
0 views

Jyoti Sagar IPR

reportpower
26. 11. 2007
0 views

reportpower

301 admin
13. 12. 2007
0 views

301 admin

cbrn threats
28. 12. 2007
0 views

cbrn threats

1ki7r36cnl3vuyj
28. 12. 2007
0 views

1ki7r36cnl3vuyj

Ionic Conductivity
30. 12. 2007
0 views

Ionic Conductivity

ElaineYau munsell
02. 01. 2008
0 views

ElaineYau munsell

SWING07 Day4 Buttyan
23. 12. 2007
0 views

SWING07 Day4 Buttyan

revolutions
07. 01. 2008
0 views

revolutions

thirtle1101b
07. 01. 2008
0 views

thirtle1101b

28b
02. 01. 2008
0 views

28b

gischner
06. 11. 2007
0 views

gischner

3303
03. 12. 2007
0 views

3303

Biferale lecture
29. 10. 2007
0 views

Biferale lecture

clp2
18. 12. 2007
0 views

clp2

07Extra JustenoughInformation
28. 11. 2007
0 views

07Extra JustenoughInformation

SFpubs
07. 12. 2007
0 views

SFpubs

RomeI
01. 11. 2007
0 views

RomeI

CBoL 2007 Eizirik
19. 11. 2007
0 views

CBoL 2007 Eizirik

Economides
20. 02. 2008
0 views

Economides

rivalry
24. 02. 2008
0 views

rivalry

prairie chicken
22. 11. 2007
0 views

prairie chicken

Nair
25. 12. 2007
0 views

Nair

1361 1
30. 12. 2007
0 views

1361 1

romanowski commercial future
14. 03. 2008
0 views

romanowski commercial future

wacs
27. 03. 2008
0 views

wacs

Jack DeHovitz 9 11 07
04. 01. 2008
0 views

Jack DeHovitz 9 11 07

HikeEverest
30. 03. 2008
0 views

HikeEverest

PAH Lung Transplant FRACP 2007
02. 11. 2007
0 views

PAH Lung Transplant FRACP 2007

OIL SEMINAR jrw
13. 04. 2008
0 views

OIL SEMINAR jrw

Read Only Faries
24. 10. 2007
0 views

Read Only Faries

NW IP Telephony and the VCS
30. 11. 2007
0 views

NW IP Telephony and the VCS

WP3 Pierini
12. 11. 2007
0 views

WP3 Pierini

steinhoff
03. 10. 2007
0 views

steinhoff

slab june2002
30. 10. 2007
0 views

slab june2002

cushman
10. 12. 2007
0 views

cushman

lecture7comp
27. 09. 2007
0 views

lecture7comp

hill
28. 09. 2007
0 views

hill

gridpp13 atlas
31. 10. 2007
0 views

gridpp13 atlas

200791918397805
01. 11. 2007
0 views

200791918397805

Tiffen
28. 12. 2007
0 views

Tiffen