Elon Law professor David Levine's scholarly paper, "The Impact of Trade Secrecy on Public Transparency" is a chapter in the recently published book The Law and Theory of Trade Secrecy. Levine presented recently at the 11th Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference and at the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest.
Levine’s chapter in The Law and Theory of Trade Secrecy explores key aspects of trade secrecy law doctrine, considers specific current examples of trade secrecy and their impacts on transparency, and outlines possible solutions to address competing interests of the legitimate trade secret holder and the public.
At the Aug.25-27 Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest at the American University Washington College of Law, Levine presented on issues of transparency that arose in the negotiating process during the creation of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and articulated his position on transparency and democratic engagement. Through his participation at the Congress, Levine contributed to The Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, which provides recommendations for action by the international intellectual property public interest community.
Levine also presented at the 11th Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference (IP Scholars Conference), held Aug. 11-12 at The Center for Intellectual Property Law & Information Technology at DePaul University College of Law in Chicago. The IP Scholars Conference brings together intellectual property scholars to present works-in-progress in order to benefit from the critique of colleagues.
Levine’s presentation was entitled, “The Social Layer of Freedom of Information Law.” In his paper, Levine argues that U.S. freedom of information law has failed to harness the power of social media networks in a way that amplifies public knowledge of government information.
“I argue that governments should provide information in social media formats and forums, which will vary depending on the layer of the request and responsive information that best meets the public’s analytical needs,” explains Levine. “For example, a request asking whether a meeting has taken place could receive a response by way of a one sentence Twitter-style post, whereas a request seeking data that was discussed at that meeting might require use of a newer social ideation tool.”