Federal Charges: Louisiana Scientists allegedly steal and duplicate info re Delta Basin Model

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

https://www.wafb.com/2019/06/05/louisiana-scientists-accused-stealing-trade-secrets-renowned-baton-rouge-water-institute/?outputType=amp

Very interesting read for us nerds.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

I know my posts suck but come on, just comment and say hi. 

[Mikey 16,766]

I'm not a water nerd but I do drink water with my meals. Been drinking water from a well for over 40 years.  Hi.

[kevon67 2,368]

I too drink water.........used to force down a gallon before gym 4 times weekly........sweat it out with an hour cardio rinse repeat.........this was back when Dorian Yates was the new Arnold.

[augolf1716 21,319]

Your posts suck...................golf says hey

[homersapien 11,465]

15 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

https://www.wafb.com/2019/06/05/louisiana-scientists-accused-stealing-trade-secrets-renowned-baton-rouge-water-institute/?outputType=amp

Very interesting read for us nerds.

I find it a little paradoxical that a non-profit would be suing for loss of trade secrets.  Seems to me that if they were truly a non-profit, they would make such data publicly available.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

I find it a little paradoxical that a non-profit would be suing for loss of trade secrets.  Seems to me that if they were truly a non-profit, they would make such data publicly available.

It’s actually being brought by the US Attorneys Office. FBI is also involved.

Criminal charges. Big stuff. 

Nevertheless, I don’t understand the implications of your point in the context of rights to one’s own proprietary information and licensed intellectual property.

[DKW 86 7,451]

10 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

It’s actually being brought by the US Attorneys Office. FBI is also involved.

Criminal charges. Big stuff. 

Nevertheless, I don’t understand the implications of your point in the context of rights to one’s own proprietary information and licensed intellectual property.

Dont try to understand. He has obviously linked one side to himself and therefore cannot see why the other side would complain about intellectual property being stolen. IE, the side that he does not favor cannot have intellectual property rights because they cannot have any intellect. It is all or nothing with homey. He considers anything that does not agree with his philosophy to be 100% ANTI-intellectual and 100% EVIL.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Dont try to understand. He has obviously linked one side to himself and therefore cannot see why the other side would complain about intellectual property being stolen. IE, the side that he does not favor cannot have intellectual property rights because they cannot have any intellect. It is all or nothing with homey. He considers anything that does not agree with his philosophy to be 100% ANTI-intellectual and 100% EVIL.

This attack is not warranted and way out of place. Homer is simply engaging in the thread. 

[homersapien 11,465]

14 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

It’s actually being brought by the US Attorneys Office. FBI is also involved.

Criminal charges. Big stuff. 

Nevertheless, I don’t understand the implications of your point in the context of rights to one’s own proprietary information and licensed intellectual property.

I think of trade secrets as typically being associated with maintaining a competitive advantage in a commercial situation.  Non profits don't operate on a competitive commercial basis - i.e.: for profit - by definition.  

In this case, I would think that sharing such a data base would be consistent with their mission, whereas preserving such data as a trade secret for the purposes of competing for contracts sounds more like a for-profit objective. 

https://thewaterinstitute.org/assets/docs/generalDocuments/WaterInstitute_Overview_OnePager_2019_190116_210818.pdf

Granted, just because a non-profit lands an income producing contract doesn't mean they are making a profit as a corporation, but it smacks to me - or "implies" as you put it - of a way of trying to have your cake and eat it too.  For example, are the officers and executives in the non-profit competing commercially for corporate income (which they can realize personally in the form of salaries and bonuses) while continuing to show no profit as a corporation?

I may be way off base here  - this is certainly not an area I know much about - but the idea of a non-profit suing for loss of trade secrets on the basis they are important for landing commercial contracts just seems strange. 

I also don't understand how or why the U.S. Attorney's office has any standing to bring suit. 

[homersapien 11,465]

31 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

This attack is not warranted and way out of place. Homer is simply engaging in the thread. 

Thanks.  I do find this interesting and appreciate you posting it.

David obviously has issues.

[homersapien 11,465]

I should add that I do understand why a non-profit might consider such data proprietary and would be rightly upset if that data were stolen.  They are entitled to control the way that data is shared or used, not the individuals acting unilaterally who stole it.

What seems odd is the idea of the non profit suing on the basis of lost financial opportunity (contracts). 

As a non profit, their mission is presumably related to serving the public with their work, instead of generating a profit.  But I could see why they would not want another for-profit company using their stolen data to make money (for example). They certainly have a reason to sue on that basis.

Perhaps I am making too much of the commercial value of this data as the basis for suing the people who stole it?  Maybe that's the way the law view "trade secrets" regardless of how the non-profit sees it?

[DKW 86 7,451]

To the simpleton, Non-Profit must mean No-Income as well. 

Thousands of non-profits are supported by rents off land donated to them, some survive off of trust income that is donated to them. I dont see making money off of Intellectual Property should be any stretch at all. 

Those of us that support charities dont just donate $$$. Charities often ask for "Donations of Time, $$$, Talent, and Skills."

DONATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO CHARITY
How to Donate Book Royalties
Life After Death: Becoming an Intellectual Property Donor

This was literally so obvious it was barely worth the time to do it.

 

[homersapien 11,465]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

To the simpleton, Non-Profit must mean No-Income as well. 

Thousands of non-profits are supported by rents off land donated to them, some survive off of trust income that is donated to them. I dont see making money off of Intellectual Property should be any stretch at all. 

Those of us that support charities dont just donate $$$. Charities often ask for "Donations of Time, $$$, Talent, and Skills."

DONATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO CHARITY
How to Donate Book Royalties
Life After Death: Becoming an Intellectual Property Donor

This was literally so obvious it was barely worth the time to do it.

 

I don't think Nola is a "simpleton".   Can you not post without insulting people?  Perhaps you should stick to the trash talk thread? 

This thread is for honest discussions instead of trying to pump up your own ego at the expense of others.  You are acting like a complete jerk.

And no one in this thread has suggested non-profits cannot earn income - or even engage in paid contractual agreements generating income in the first place.  Like you said, that's "obvious" to most people with even a basic understanding of how non-profits work.

It's the proprietary, trade secret aspect that seems a little out of sort with their mission as a non-profit.  It seems to me that maybe something like "breach of trust" would be better to use as the basis for a lawsuit than "stealing trade secrets".  It would be more reflective of their mission as a non-profit.

But if there's a criminal component as Nola suggested, I can see why the trade secret approach would be appropriate, or even necessary.

Now please, just beg off if you just cannot control your personal venom.  I have no interest in engaging with you to start with, so stop putting me in a position of having to defend myself.   Save your valuable time.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

I should add that I do understand why a non-profit might consider such data proprietary and would be rightly upset if that data were stolen.  They are entitled to control the way that data is shared or used, not the individuals acting unilaterally who stole it.

What seems odd is the idea of the non profit suing on the basis of lost financial opportunity (contracts). 

As a non profit, their mission is presumably related to serving the public with their work, instead of generating a profit.  But I could see why they would not want another for-profit company using their stolen data to make money (for example). They certainly have a reason to sue on that basis.

Perhaps I am making too much of the commercial value of this data as the basis for suing the people who stole it?  Maybe that's the way the law view "trade secrets" regardless of how the non-profit sees it?

The non-profit is not suing. The US Attorneys Office is brining criminal charges.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

I think of trade secrets as typically being associated with maintaining a competitive advantage in a commercial situation.  Non profits don't operate on a competitive commercial basis - i.e.: for profit - by definition.  

In this case, I would think that sharing such a data base would be consistent with their mission, whereas preserving such data as a trade secret for the purposes of competing for contracts sounds more like a for-profit objective. 

https://thewaterinstitute.org/assets/docs/generalDocuments/WaterInstitute_Overview_OnePager_2019_190116_210818.pdf

Granted, just because a non-profit lands an income producing contract doesn't mean they are making a profit as a corporation, but it smacks to me - or "implies" as you put it - of a way of trying to have your cake and eat it too.  For example, are the officers and executives in the non-profit competing commercially for corporate income (which they can realize personally in the form of salaries and bonuses) while continuing to show no profit as a corporation?

I may be way off base here  - this is certainly not an area I know much about - but the idea of a non-profit suing for loss of trade secrets on the basis they are important for landing commercial contracts just seems strange. 

I also don't understand how or why the U.S. Attorney's office has any standing to bring suit. 

The US (or state) Attorneys Office is essentially the only party that has “standing” to bring criminal charges. I think you may have the impression that this is a civil lawsuit.

Think of it as theft of property, if that simplifies things.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

Thanks.  I do find this interesting and appreciate you posting it.

David obviously has issues.

It was completely unnecessary.

[DKW 86 7,451]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

It was completely unnecessary.

I felt it was necessary...lol.

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

I don't think Nola is a "simpleton".   Can you not post without insulting people?  Perhaps you should stick to the trash talk thread? 

This thread is for honest discussions instead of trying to pump up your own ego at the expense of others.  You are acting like a complete jerk.

And no one in this thread has suggested non-profits cannot earn income - or even engage in paid contractual agreements generating income in the first place.  Like you said, that's "obvious" to most people with even a basic understanding of how non-profits work.

It's the proprietary, trade secret aspect that seems a little out of sort with their mission as a non-profit.  It seems to me that maybe something like "breach of trust" would be better to use as the basis for a lawsuit than "stealing trade secrets".  It would be more reflective of their mission as a non-profit.

But if there's a criminal component as Nola suggested, I can see why the trade secret approach would be appropriate, or even necessary.

Now please, just beg off if you just cannot control your personal venom.  I have no interest in engaging with you to start with, so stop putting me in a position of having to defend myself.   Save your valuable time.

I didnt call Nola a simpleton. 

[homersapien 11,465]

On 6/7/2019 at 9:26 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

It was completely unnecessary.

My entire dispute with him is unnecessary.  Completely.

[homersapien 11,465]

On 6/7/2019 at 7:17 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

The US (or state) Attorneys Office is essentially the only party that has “standing” to bring criminal charges. I think you may have the impression that this is a civil lawsuit.

Think of it as theft of property, if that simplifies things.

Yes, for some reason I assumed this was a civil lawsuit.  In hindsight, not sure why I assumed it.

It guess it just sounded like a civil case.

[autigeremt 6,719]

As someone who sits on two boards and an advisory council for three non-profit water advocacy groups in Alabama I’m watching this one to see where it leads. It is interesting. 

Thanks for sharing.