"There’s white and then there’s the how-white-my-shirts-can-be white..."
February 5, 2016 2:01 PM Subscribe
Stealing White: How a corporate spy swiped plans for DuPont’s billion-dollar color formula By Del Quentin Wilber [Bloomberg Business]
“At first, you’re like: Why are they stealing the color white? I had to Google it to figure out what titanium dioxide even was,” says Dean Chappell, acting section chief of counterespionage for the FBI. “Then you realize there is a strategy to it.” You can’t even call it spying, adds John Carlin, the assistant attorney general in charge of the U.S. Department of Justice’s national security division. “This is theft. And this—stealing the color white—is a very good example of the problem. It’s not a national security secret. It’s about stealing something you can make a buck off of. It’s part of a strategy to profit off what American ingenuity creates.”
Invented 70 years ago? That should be fair game.
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:11 PM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:11 PM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
So did Dupont patent this process or did they just keep it a secret? The article is confusing.
posted by octothorpe at 2:17 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by octothorpe at 2:17 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Cry about it when it happens to them, laugh about it when they get away with it without being caught or prosecuted. None of these people have clean hands.
Too cynical?
posted by nevercalm at 2:19 PM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Too cynical?
posted by nevercalm at 2:19 PM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
So did Dupont patent this process or did they just keep it a secret? The article is confusing.
Patenting explicitly puts inventions in the public domain in exchange for limited-time monopoly rights, which don't last 70 years. This would have to be simply a trade secret.
posted by Aleyn at 2:22 PM on February 5, 2016 [15 favorites]
Patenting explicitly puts inventions in the public domain in exchange for limited-time monopoly rights, which don't last 70 years. This would have to be simply a trade secret.
posted by Aleyn at 2:22 PM on February 5, 2016 [15 favorites]
We know the US-dominated Echelon system is used for commercial espionage too, so, a plague on everyone’s houses I guess.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:23 PM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:23 PM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
Cry about it when it happens to them
Can't get no satisfaction, eh?
posted by Greg_Ace at 2:24 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can't get no satisfaction, eh?
posted by Greg_Ace at 2:24 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Invented 70 years ago? That should be fair game.
why should it be fair game?
posted by Dr. Twist at 2:24 PM on February 5, 2016
why should it be fair game?
posted by Dr. Twist at 2:24 PM on February 5, 2016
So did Dupont patent this process or did they just keep it a secret? The article is confusing.
It was a trade secret, which are legally kind of weird. It's okay for anyone to reproduce their process, so long as they didn't do espionage or break a contract to learn it. However, unlike patents, trade secrets never expire.
posted by aubilenon at 2:26 PM on February 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
It was a trade secret, which are legally kind of weird. It's okay for anyone to reproduce their process, so long as they didn't do espionage or break a contract to learn it. However, unlike patents, trade secrets never expire.
posted by aubilenon at 2:26 PM on February 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
The article's description of Walter Liew is chilling. A really bright guy, a charmer when he wanted to be, and with ambitions that overcame his scruples. Completely used by the brighter, the more manipulative, the more ambitious, the less scrupulous.
I'm currently working near a process that is a trade secret, so a story like this hits close to home.
posted by infinitewindow at 2:26 PM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm currently working near a process that is a trade secret, so a story like this hits close to home.
posted by infinitewindow at 2:26 PM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, I mean the fact that China is already making loads of this stuff using a way dirtier method and is also where a ton of it is used anyway, and that DuPont is not exactly teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and desperately needing whatever marginally larger amount of money they make by having a more efficient process (not like they were the only ones to make it, just they had the best way), and that we're as bad as anyone in this made me pretty sympathetic to the Chinese here. It's all just for money on both sides, but at least it'll be marginally cleaner for make in China, and every little bit helps.
Neat how all that works though. Crazy to think it about trying to protect such a large enterprise with so many moving parts for so long.
posted by neonrev at 2:27 PM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
Neat how all that works though. Crazy to think it about trying to protect such a large enterprise with so many moving parts for so long.
posted by neonrev at 2:27 PM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
However, unlike patents, trade secrets never expire.
As long as they stay a secret.
posted by jedicus at 2:32 PM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
As long as they stay a secret.
posted by jedicus at 2:32 PM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
This was a consideration for a client I worked with. They have a piece of technology that they could file a patent for, but that would require revealing how it works to the world. At which point their competitors could implement that process in secret, but then it would be up to the originating company to prove that others are in fact using that patented process... which is a lot simpler when it's a giant factory making stuff, less so when it's software you don't have access to.
posted by danny the boy at 2:33 PM on February 5, 2016
posted by danny the boy at 2:33 PM on February 5, 2016
What does the economics profession think of trade secrets? Do they promote innovation, or hinder it?
posted by clawsoon at 2:55 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 2:55 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
DuPont is not...desperately needing whatever marginally larger amount of money they make by having a more efficient process
I dunno, the article says "they spend $150 million a year to improve the procedure, even if it’s just to boost production by 1 percent" which makes it seem like the efficiency might be somewhat important.
posted by The Hamms Bear at 2:56 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I dunno, the article says "they spend $150 million a year to improve the procedure, even if it’s just to boost production by 1 percent" which makes it seem like the efficiency might be somewhat important.
posted by The Hamms Bear at 2:56 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
DuPont/Chemours does shield its titanium dioxide process. Guards patrol its plants, which are surrounded by tall fences. Visitors have to be escorted and are forbidden from taking photographs. Documents and blueprints must be signed out, bags inspected. Employees sign confidentiality agreements and are relentlessly drilled on protecting proprietary information. Work is compartmentalized so that few employees have access to everything in a plant. The company vets all its contractors.
Sometimes I learn something that I couldn't even have even imagined was the case beforehand. This is super interesting, thanks for sharing the article.
Even so, as documents and testimony in a 2014 federal trial in San Francisco reveal, a naturalized American citizen, business owner, and technology consultant named Walter Liew stole DuPont’s protocols for producing its superior titanium white from 1997 through 2011.
He spent 14 years stealing the color white. It makes sense, but the mind boggles when you see it in writing.
posted by SpacemanStix at 3:05 PM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
Sometimes I learn something that I couldn't even have even imagined was the case beforehand. This is super interesting, thanks for sharing the article.
Even so, as documents and testimony in a 2014 federal trial in San Francisco reveal, a naturalized American citizen, business owner, and technology consultant named Walter Liew stole DuPont’s protocols for producing its superior titanium white from 1997 through 2011.
He spent 14 years stealing the color white. It makes sense, but the mind boggles when you see it in writing.
posted by SpacemanStix at 3:05 PM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
I guess that China stealing the formula for TiO2 is better in the long than them using lead for white pigment.
posted by octothorpe at 3:12 PM on February 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 3:12 PM on February 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
He spent 14 years stealing the color white. It makes sense, but the mind boggles when you see it in writing.
MagicRealismBot: A Malaysian chemical engineer spends 14 years stealing the colour white.
posted by acb at 3:47 PM on February 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
MagicRealismBot: A Malaysian chemical engineer spends 14 years stealing the colour white.
posted by acb at 3:47 PM on February 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
According to the FBI documents, the relationship between Liew and Spitler lasted for years. Liew flattered Spitler, who was bitter about DuPont’s business strategies and its decision in the ’90s to fire thousands of employees. Spitler also admitted to agents that he felt insecure about not having attended a top university (he got a degree from Tri-State University in Angola, Ind.) and was constantly worried about losing his job.
That's the problem with fidelity and trust... it goes both ways.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 3:57 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's the problem with fidelity and trust... it goes both ways.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 3:57 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Henry Ford bought egg-shell white by the vats for his plants. Along with the color, steel blue, he thought it made work more conducive.
concerning trade secrets and other proprietary considerations, perhaps the Dow merger makes a bit more sense.
posted by clavdivs at 4:03 PM on February 5, 2016
concerning trade secrets and other proprietary considerations, perhaps the Dow merger makes a bit more sense.
posted by clavdivs at 4:03 PM on February 5, 2016
You can’t even call it spying, adds John Carlin, the assistant attorney general in charge of the U.S. Department of Justice’s national security division. “This is theft. And this—stealing the color white—is a very good example of the problem. It’s not a national security secret. It’s about stealing something you can make a buck off of. It’s part of a strategy to profit off what American ingenuity creates.”
Hmm... I would argue you absolutely can call it spying. Much of spying involves theft (theft of secrets, maybe via B&E, maybe via bribery, but theft none the less).
When spies 'retire' they often go into 'competitive intelligence' also known as 'industrial espionage', or private spying.
posted by el io at 4:03 PM on February 5, 2016
Hmm... I would argue you absolutely can call it spying. Much of spying involves theft (theft of secrets, maybe via B&E, maybe via bribery, but theft none the less).
When spies 'retire' they often go into 'competitive intelligence' also known as 'industrial espionage', or private spying.
posted by el io at 4:03 PM on February 5, 2016
i find it troubling that someone can be punished so severely for a corporate crime. if Liew robbed someone's house and took all of their belongings, would he go to jail for 15 years?
if he stole a fraction of their possessions, would he go to jail for 15 years?
sure, he did something wrong, and he needs to face justice.
but 15 years?
posted by bitteroldman at 4:05 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
if he stole a fraction of their possessions, would he go to jail for 15 years?
sure, he did something wrong, and he needs to face justice.
but 15 years?
posted by bitteroldman at 4:05 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well, you can't get back a trade secret. And intellectual property is (nominally) worth orders of magnitude more than all of someone's possessions.
I was slightly surprised he only got 15 years; I was expecting something more in the Madoff range (100+).
posted by acb at 4:15 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I was slightly surprised he only got 15 years; I was expecting something more in the Madoff range (100+).
posted by acb at 4:15 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
i find it troubling that someone can be punished so severely for a corporate crime. if Liew robbed someone's house and took all of their belongings, would he go to jail for 15 years?
if he stole a fraction of their possessions, would he go to jail for 15 years?
sure, he did something wrong, and he needs to face justice.
but 15 years?
I agree that it's troubling but I don't think there's really a great answer to this. How do you discourage people from stealing information that's worth millions of dollars? The article says the guy landed $30M worth of contracts with the factory blueprints. But often it's muddied even further because there's nothing so well documented as that, so DuPont is going to be the first word in how much the information is worth, and if they want blood, they'll inflate their estimate. They can't get what they really want, which is for him to magically unsteal their secrets.
posted by aubilenon at 4:22 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
if he stole a fraction of their possessions, would he go to jail for 15 years?
sure, he did something wrong, and he needs to face justice.
but 15 years?
I agree that it's troubling but I don't think there's really a great answer to this. How do you discourage people from stealing information that's worth millions of dollars? The article says the guy landed $30M worth of contracts with the factory blueprints. But often it's muddied even further because there's nothing so well documented as that, so DuPont is going to be the first word in how much the information is worth, and if they want blood, they'll inflate their estimate. They can't get what they really want, which is for him to magically unsteal their secrets.
posted by aubilenon at 4:22 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm surprised that Bloomberg missed the opportunity to dub the spy Walter White!
posted by Zedcaster at 4:27 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Zedcaster at 4:27 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
i find it troubling that someone can be punished so severely for a corporate crime.
I find it troubling that someone can be punished only for crimes that harm corporations. On the other hand, bank corporations that steal hundreds of billions of dollars from customers are guilty of no crime at all.
posted by JackFlash at 4:41 PM on February 5, 2016 [20 favorites]
I find it troubling that someone can be punished only for crimes that harm corporations. On the other hand, bank corporations that steal hundreds of billions of dollars from customers are guilty of no crime at all.
posted by JackFlash at 4:41 PM on February 5, 2016 [20 favorites]
There’s white, and then there’s the immaculate ultrawhite behind the French doors of a new GE Café Series refrigerator. There’s white, and then there’s the luminous-from-every-angle white hood of a 50th anniversary Ford Mustang GT. There’s white, and then there’s the how-white-my-shirts-can-be white that’s used to brighten myriad products, from the pages of new Bibles to the hulls of superyachts to the snowy filling inside Oreo cookies.What I don't get about all this enthusiasm for titanium dioxide as a white pigment is how it squares with TiO2's notorious and widely exploited ability to catalyze oxidation under UV light.
When you use it to whiten your shirt, why doesn't it eat that shirt when you go out into the sun, for example, or eat your house paint -- or eat into your skin when you use it as a sunscreen, for that matter?
I know something like that is possible because the inventor of silica gel tried to use it as an additive to that product for some reason, but abandoned the project when the titanium dioxide ate the silica gel.
posted by jamjam at 5:00 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
What I don't get about all this enthusiasm for titanium dioxide as a white pigment is how it squares with TiO2's notorious and widely exploited ability to catalyze oxidation under UV light.
Is this the phenomenon behind old computer cases going yellow, much to the consternation of Amiga collectors who have been searching in vain for an antidote?
posted by acb at 5:03 PM on February 5, 2016
Is this the phenomenon behind old computer cases going yellow, much to the consternation of Amiga collectors who have been searching in vain for an antidote?
posted by acb at 5:03 PM on February 5, 2016
Rutile is probably the preferred phase of titania for white because it is much less photocatalytically active than the anatase phase (by a factor of about a hundred, if I recall correctly), and because it is more stable overall.
posted by the Real Dan at 5:54 PM on February 5, 2016
posted by the Real Dan at 5:54 PM on February 5, 2016
What I don't get about all this enthusiasm for titanium dioxide as a white pigment is how it squares with TiO2's notorious and widely exploited ability to catalyze oxidation under UV light.
Not a chemist, just speculating:
1. This would be more an issue when the stuff is openly exposed to atmospheric gas, ie it probably doesn't apply to paint and other composits where it is suspended in a (presumably fairly unreactive) matrix.
2. Even in situations where it is exposed to atmosphere, the result would be a self-cleaning / self-bleaching white, which seems advantageous for many purposes.
posted by anonymisc at 5:57 PM on February 5, 2016
Not a chemist, just speculating:
1. This would be more an issue when the stuff is openly exposed to atmospheric gas, ie it probably doesn't apply to paint and other composits where it is suspended in a (presumably fairly unreactive) matrix.
2. Even in situations where it is exposed to atmosphere, the result would be a self-cleaning / self-bleaching white, which seems advantageous for many purposes.
posted by anonymisc at 5:57 PM on February 5, 2016
I don't see how or why this is a crime. It's not stealing (Dupont still has possession of the information, no?). I guess somewhere along the line someone might have stolen a document, but probably they copied or photographed them instead, so it's probably not even stealing that. I can see how it is all sorts of breach of contract, but breach of contract is not a crime. Asking someone to breach their contract and paying them for it or profiting from it when they do is not a crime and not even a civil offense, as far as I can think. I'm completely missing why learning someone else's secret is illegal (I mean some steps that people may take to learn secrets -- break and enter, extortion, whatever, sure, but if you can find out somebody's secret without committing any crime, I don't see why the very finding out of the secret should be a crime).
Dupont gambled that they could keep this secret longer than a patent period. And good for them. They probably won that gamble but they can't have expected to keep their secret forever.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:17 PM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Dupont gambled that they could keep this secret longer than a patent period. And good for them. They probably won that gamble but they can't have expected to keep their secret forever.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:17 PM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
If only I had a penguin...: "I don't see how or why this is a crime."
Aren't there specific statues against industrial espionage in the US?
posted by Mitheral at 6:19 PM on February 5, 2016
Aren't there specific statues against industrial espionage in the US?
posted by Mitheral at 6:19 PM on February 5, 2016
If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear.
Wake up sheeple.
Titanium Dioxide is made of people.
posted by vicx at 6:30 PM on February 5, 2016
Wake up sheeple.
Titanium Dioxide is made of people.
posted by vicx at 6:30 PM on February 5, 2016
Wake up sheeple.
Titanium Dioxide is made of people.
But can it melt steel beams?
posted by acb at 6:50 PM on February 5, 2016
Titanium Dioxide is made of people.
But can it melt steel beams?
posted by acb at 6:50 PM on February 5, 2016
Aren't there specific statues against industrial espionage in the US?
I have no idea. But it's not self-evident to me that there should be or why there would be, whether there are or there aren't. In other words, I don't see why this should be a crime (whether it is or it isn't).
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:19 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have no idea. But it's not self-evident to me that there should be or why there would be, whether there are or there aren't. In other words, I don't see why this should be a crime (whether it is or it isn't).
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:19 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I find it troubling that someone can be punished only for crimes that harm corporations.
If a company gets their "secret formula" stolen and a competitor can seriously undercut them that could potentially cost hundreds or even thousands of jobs. DuPont isn't just a faceless corporate behemoth, it's thousands of people who support themselves, and perhaps families, working there.
posted by MikeMc at 7:31 PM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
If a company gets their "secret formula" stolen and a competitor can seriously undercut them that could potentially cost hundreds or even thousands of jobs. DuPont isn't just a faceless corporate behemoth, it's thousands of people who support themselves, and perhaps families, working there.
posted by MikeMc at 7:31 PM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
And the other company will be using this secret formula to assemble and run a factory with just one guy?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:32 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:32 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
If a company gets their "secret formula" stolen and a competitor can seriously undercut them that could potentially cost hundreds or even thousands of jobs.
And, ironically, that is exactly the same reason they claim that corporations can't be punished for their crimes. Too big to jail.
posted by JackFlash at 7:49 PM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
And, ironically, that is exactly the same reason they claim that corporations can't be punished for their crimes. Too big to jail.
posted by JackFlash at 7:49 PM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
And the other company will be using this secret formula to assemble and run a factory with just one guy
Who knows? Who cares? Growing up in Rust Belt industrial city I've never been a fan of putting thousands of people out of work to make something cheaper somewhere else. I've seen first hand the effect that has on a community.
posted by MikeMc at 7:59 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Who knows? Who cares? Growing up in Rust Belt industrial city I've never been a fan of putting thousands of people out of work to make something cheaper somewhere else. I've seen first hand the effect that has on a community.
posted by MikeMc at 7:59 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Aren't there specific statues against industrial espionage in the US?
Yes: Economic Espionage Act of 1996.
I'm sure there were other laws being broken as well, but this seems squarely aimed at economic espionage, and Title 1 of the act is in regards to trade secrets.
posted by el io at 9:11 PM on February 5, 2016
Yes: Economic Espionage Act of 1996.
I'm sure there were other laws being broken as well, but this seems squarely aimed at economic espionage, and Title 1 of the act is in regards to trade secrets.
posted by el io at 9:11 PM on February 5, 2016
I'm completely missing why learning someone else's secret is illegal
Why invent anything when you can just wait for someone else to pay for the research and then steal it for yourself? Thanks suckers!
posted by The Hamms Bear at 10:52 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why invent anything when you can just wait for someone else to pay for the research and then steal it for yourself? Thanks suckers!
posted by The Hamms Bear at 10:52 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
At the end of the day though, it probably would have been cheaper for the Chinese to simply hire a hacker.
Oh, wait, they did: "Newly filed court documents reveal that the FBI motel raid found evidence DuPont’s computers had been hacked."
posted by el io at 1:22 AM on February 6, 2016
Oh, wait, they did: "Newly filed court documents reveal that the FBI motel raid found evidence DuPont’s computers had been hacked."
posted by el io at 1:22 AM on February 6, 2016
Why invent anything when you can just wait for someone else to pay for the research and then steal it for yourself? Thanks suckers!
And that's why we have a patent system, to punish people who steal the product of human research. But there's a trade-off: in exchange for a limited period of patent protection, researchers have to give their discoveries away. DuPont didn't want to do that, but it got the government to protect their research anyway.
There are just so many things wrong with this outcome: the US justice system being used to maximise corporate profits;
DuPont's decision to deprive the world of their research, while benefiting from the work of others;
The fact that China (and other places) will still be producing TiO2, just in a more wasteful, dangerous, and polluting way.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:37 AM on February 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
And that's why we have a patent system, to punish people who steal the product of human research. But there's a trade-off: in exchange for a limited period of patent protection, researchers have to give their discoveries away. DuPont didn't want to do that, but it got the government to protect their research anyway.
There are just so many things wrong with this outcome: the US justice system being used to maximise corporate profits;
DuPont's decision to deprive the world of their research, while benefiting from the work of others;
The fact that China (and other places) will still be producing TiO2, just in a more wasteful, dangerous, and polluting way.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:37 AM on February 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
If only I had a penguin...: I don't see why the very finding out of the secret should be a crime.
This isn't difficult. If you believe in capitalism (and I do, with some caveats), then if you, or your company, have expended effort and capital do develop a superior product or process, then it's entirely reasonable that you will take steps to protect that intellectual property - contractually and physically - and intentionally breaching those are criminal acts in and of themselves.
Looked at another way - if others independently duplicate or improve the process, it's not a crime. If you get there by stealing the work of others... crime.
Of course these sorts of ethical breaches (usually smaller) occur daily in business. Hiring away key people from your competitors, reverse-engineering competitor products, infiltrating their company or contractors...
Both the Soviet and US space programs were based on technology and personnel from the Nazi rocket programs. ("our Germans are better than their Germans" - The Right Stuff). Ethics sometimes yields to other objectives, don't they...
Anyways, it was a great OP. Very interesting.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:23 AM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
This isn't difficult. If you believe in capitalism (and I do, with some caveats), then if you, or your company, have expended effort and capital do develop a superior product or process, then it's entirely reasonable that you will take steps to protect that intellectual property - contractually and physically - and intentionally breaching those are criminal acts in and of themselves.
Looked at another way - if others independently duplicate or improve the process, it's not a crime. If you get there by stealing the work of others... crime.
Of course these sorts of ethical breaches (usually smaller) occur daily in business. Hiring away key people from your competitors, reverse-engineering competitor products, infiltrating their company or contractors...
Both the Soviet and US space programs were based on technology and personnel from the Nazi rocket programs. ("our Germans are better than their Germans" - The Right Stuff). Ethics sometimes yields to other objectives, don't they...
Anyways, it was a great OP. Very interesting.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:23 AM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
The fact that China (and other places) will still be producing TiO2, just in a more wasteful, dangerous, and polluting way.This is fundamentally why I found myself rooting for the Chinese in this story. More efficient, less polluting titanium dioxide processes benefit humanity, not just dupont.
(Of course, what will probably happen is that they'll just make more of it, wiping out any environmental advantages and making all our stuff slightly more white)
posted by leo_r at 8:24 AM on February 6, 2016
This isn't difficult. If you believe in capitalism (and I do, with some caveats), then if you, or your company, have expended effort and capital do develop a superior product or process, then it's entirely reasonable that you will take steps to protect that intellectual property - contractually and physically - and intentionally breaching those are criminal acts in and of themselves.
Oh I understand why Dupont cares and of course it's reasonable that they try to prevent this. And I understand that many acts involved in finding this information are criminal in themselves, and that makes sense. If you break and enter that's break and enter. If you hack a computer, you've hacked a computer. No problem at all with those things being a crime. But whyIf you violate a contract, you can be sued. That's not a crime, but it can certainly cause you legal troubles. But why should accessing the information, if done without committing any crime, be a criminal act in itself. Crimes are supposed to be things that harm society as a whole, not just the victim.
So yeah, I see why Dupont cares and why they would want to prevent this. I see why some of the acts involved may be criminal. But I don't see why I, as a person who is not Dupont should care whether Dupont is able to produce white more cheaply than its competitors. And as someone upthread pointed out, I can see good reasons why I'd rather see this information more widely available: Producucing white by other methods is more dangerous and environmentally dirty. If everyone were using Dupont's methods that would advance goals that I as a citizen wish to advance, environmental responsibility and respect for health and safety.
So why is the public, via the courts and the justice system, working to help Dupont keep its secrets when there's no particular reason the public should care if Dupont can make white cheaper than 3M, or some guy in California, or his buddies in China.
I knew someone who would often argue in favour of some laws because "You can see why they (usually somebody rich and powerfu) would want this" and explain why they would want it. But "somebody wants this" could justify just about anything ("It should be legal for anyone earning less than $35K per year, to just stop paying their rent and the landlord should house them for free, and also pay utilities. I mean you could see why people making less than $35K per year would want that, right?"). But somehow the somebodies in question are never poor people or powerless people. They're always rich corporations. We have this law because you can see why they'd want it.
Well yes, I can see why they'd want it. I'm having a little trouble seeing how it makes our civilization better or helps actual people*, which is the standard I think we should use in evaluating our laws and forming our views as citizens.
* Though a fair point made by MikeMC re: layoffs. I know that people laid off will not be comforted by the fact that just as many people were hired somewhere else.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:31 AM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh I understand why Dupont cares and of course it's reasonable that they try to prevent this. And I understand that many acts involved in finding this information are criminal in themselves, and that makes sense. If you break and enter that's break and enter. If you hack a computer, you've hacked a computer. No problem at all with those things being a crime. But whyIf you violate a contract, you can be sued. That's not a crime, but it can certainly cause you legal troubles. But why should accessing the information, if done without committing any crime, be a criminal act in itself. Crimes are supposed to be things that harm society as a whole, not just the victim.
So yeah, I see why Dupont cares and why they would want to prevent this. I see why some of the acts involved may be criminal. But I don't see why I, as a person who is not Dupont should care whether Dupont is able to produce white more cheaply than its competitors. And as someone upthread pointed out, I can see good reasons why I'd rather see this information more widely available: Producucing white by other methods is more dangerous and environmentally dirty. If everyone were using Dupont's methods that would advance goals that I as a citizen wish to advance, environmental responsibility and respect for health and safety.
So why is the public, via the courts and the justice system, working to help Dupont keep its secrets when there's no particular reason the public should care if Dupont can make white cheaper than 3M, or some guy in California, or his buddies in China.
I knew someone who would often argue in favour of some laws because "You can see why they (usually somebody rich and powerfu) would want this" and explain why they would want it. But "somebody wants this" could justify just about anything ("It should be legal for anyone earning less than $35K per year, to just stop paying their rent and the landlord should house them for free, and also pay utilities. I mean you could see why people making less than $35K per year would want that, right?"). But somehow the somebodies in question are never poor people or powerless people. They're always rich corporations. We have this law because you can see why they'd want it.
Well yes, I can see why they'd want it. I'm having a little trouble seeing how it makes our civilization better or helps actual people*, which is the standard I think we should use in evaluating our laws and forming our views as citizens.
* Though a fair point made by MikeMC re: layoffs. I know that people laid off will not be comforted by the fact that just as many people were hired somewhere else.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:31 AM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Alternate title for this FPP: White Privilege.
posted by kozad at 10:43 AM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by kozad at 10:43 AM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
What does the economics profession think of trade secrets? Do they promote innovation, or hinder it?
Hard to see how trade secrets are better than patents for promoting innovation. DuPont didn't need to innovate on their process once they had it, and nobody else was given an opportunity to do so.
posted by kisch mokusch at 1:44 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hard to see how trade secrets are better than patents for promoting innovation. DuPont didn't need to innovate on their process once they had it, and nobody else was given an opportunity to do so.
posted by kisch mokusch at 1:44 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
DuPont didn't need to innovate on their process once they had it
According to the article, "Company executives have said they spend $150 million a year to improve the procedure, even if it’s just to boost production by 1 percent."
Of course, they don't share those improvements with the world, at least not on purpose.
posted by moonmilk at 2:12 PM on February 6, 2016
According to the article, "Company executives have said they spend $150 million a year to improve the procedure, even if it’s just to boost production by 1 percent."
Of course, they don't share those improvements with the world, at least not on purpose.
posted by moonmilk at 2:12 PM on February 6, 2016
DuPont/Chemours does shield its titanium dioxide process. Guards patrol its plants, which are surrounded by tall fences. Visitors have to be escorted and are forbidden from taking photographs. Documents and blueprints must be signed out, bags inspected. Employees sign confidentiality agreements and are relentlessly drilled on protecting proprietary information. Work is compartmentalized so that few employees have access to everything in a plant. The company vets all its contractors.
Isn't this normal for most manufacturing/large tech companies? I don't want to say where I work, but you need a badge to get into the parking lot/garage, a badge to get in the building (and out), there are security guards and cameras, we have mandatory periodic security training, and there are sections of the building I can't get into (as a contractor, but employees in other departments can't either). Plus, our laptops are pretty locked down. This was all true of the last place I worked, except for the parking lot piece. My two previous employers, in the educational and legal fields, had almost none of these measures.
posted by desjardins at 2:47 PM on February 6, 2016
Isn't this normal for most manufacturing/large tech companies? I don't want to say where I work, but you need a badge to get into the parking lot/garage, a badge to get in the building (and out), there are security guards and cameras, we have mandatory periodic security training, and there are sections of the building I can't get into (as a contractor, but employees in other departments can't either). Plus, our laptops are pretty locked down. This was all true of the last place I worked, except for the parking lot piece. My two previous employers, in the educational and legal fields, had almost none of these measures.
posted by desjardins at 2:47 PM on February 6, 2016
If you violate a contract, you can be sued. That's not a crime, but it can certainly cause you legal troubles.
How many Chinese companies can you name who have been sued successfully for IP violations?
... as someone upthread pointed out, I can see good reasons why I'd rather see this information more widely available: Producucing white by other methods is more dangerous and environmentally dirty. If everyone were using Dupont's methods that would advance goals that I as a citizen wish to advance, environmental responsibility and respect for health and safety.
So why is the public, via the courts and the justice system, working to help Dupont keep its secrets when there's no particular reason the public should care if Dupont can make white cheaper than 3M, or some guy in California, or his buddies in China.
We're not talking cure for cancer or reducing world hunger... we're talking about a colorant here. I don't see a whole lotta social benefit in forcing DuPont to share its manufacturing process for a colorant... Absent the profit motive, would DuPont or any other company have even bothered to come up with a better process?
Until we give up capitalism, profit is still the main driving force for individuals, companies and their investors to take the risks involved in innovating and improving.
posted by Artful Codger at 3:52 PM on February 6, 2016
How many Chinese companies can you name who have been sued successfully for IP violations?
... as someone upthread pointed out, I can see good reasons why I'd rather see this information more widely available: Producucing white by other methods is more dangerous and environmentally dirty. If everyone were using Dupont's methods that would advance goals that I as a citizen wish to advance, environmental responsibility and respect for health and safety.
So why is the public, via the courts and the justice system, working to help Dupont keep its secrets when there's no particular reason the public should care if Dupont can make white cheaper than 3M, or some guy in California, or his buddies in China.
We're not talking cure for cancer or reducing world hunger... we're talking about a colorant here. I don't see a whole lotta social benefit in forcing DuPont to share its manufacturing process for a colorant... Absent the profit motive, would DuPont or any other company have even bothered to come up with a better process?
Until we give up capitalism, profit is still the main driving force for individuals, companies and their investors to take the risks involved in innovating and improving.
posted by Artful Codger at 3:52 PM on February 6, 2016
How many Chinese companies can you name who have been sued successfully for IP violations?
The chinese companies didn't violate contracts, which is what I was talking about where you quoted. The person who violated contracts where the Dupont employees who fed information out. Those people can be sued and its reasonable that Dupont should and would sue them, for breach of contract, or maybe their contracts already specificy penalties if these parts of the contract are breached.
We're not talking cure for cancer or reducing world hunger
When we talk environmental issues, we're often talking about the prevention of cancer, which is in some ways even better than a cure. And don't think that environmental contamination doesn't do as much harm to the vulnerable in many poor places as hunger.
Absent the profit motive, would DuPont or any other company have even bothered to come up with a better process?
Saying "the state is not going to tell people they can't use your information if they can get it without breaking any laws" is not equivalent to "absent the profit motive." Even without criminilizing access to this knowledge, Dupont would still have had the ability to guarantee exclusive use of the technology for a time period through the patent process. They chose not to do that, but even so, their opportunities to profit remain: Without a patent, they can keep their process secret for years and years and years, as they have done, and profit from it during that time. To maintain their secret they can rely on making the information hard to access without committing a crime or breaching a contract, as they have done, and rely on criminal laws and contract enforcement, rather than expecting the state to criminalize something just because it makes sense they wouldn't want it.
Despite the fact that many many years after they developed it, the secret is out, Dupont has profited from the money they put into this innovation. If there were no criminal penalty attached to accessing other companies' information, you can rest assured that innovators would still profit. [Thought experiment: If Dupont and its investors had a time machine and could go back and choose not to invent this process or make the improvements in it they had made over the years, but could do nothing about the time and nature of the eventual disclosure, would the accounting really show that the investment and innovation hadn't paid off?], So no worries, investors can still take risks and keep innovating and improving.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 4:38 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
The chinese companies didn't violate contracts, which is what I was talking about where you quoted. The person who violated contracts where the Dupont employees who fed information out. Those people can be sued and its reasonable that Dupont should and would sue them, for breach of contract, or maybe their contracts already specificy penalties if these parts of the contract are breached.
We're not talking cure for cancer or reducing world hunger
When we talk environmental issues, we're often talking about the prevention of cancer, which is in some ways even better than a cure. And don't think that environmental contamination doesn't do as much harm to the vulnerable in many poor places as hunger.
Absent the profit motive, would DuPont or any other company have even bothered to come up with a better process?
Saying "the state is not going to tell people they can't use your information if they can get it without breaking any laws" is not equivalent to "absent the profit motive." Even without criminilizing access to this knowledge, Dupont would still have had the ability to guarantee exclusive use of the technology for a time period through the patent process. They chose not to do that, but even so, their opportunities to profit remain: Without a patent, they can keep their process secret for years and years and years, as they have done, and profit from it during that time. To maintain their secret they can rely on making the information hard to access without committing a crime or breaching a contract, as they have done, and rely on criminal laws and contract enforcement, rather than expecting the state to criminalize something just because it makes sense they wouldn't want it.
Despite the fact that many many years after they developed it, the secret is out, Dupont has profited from the money they put into this innovation. If there were no criminal penalty attached to accessing other companies' information, you can rest assured that innovators would still profit. [Thought experiment: If Dupont and its investors had a time machine and could go back and choose not to invent this process or make the improvements in it they had made over the years, but could do nothing about the time and nature of the eventual disclosure, would the accounting really show that the investment and innovation hadn't paid off?], So no worries, investors can still take risks and keep innovating and improving.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 4:38 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
We're not talking cure for cancer or reducing world hunger... we're talking about a colorant here. I don't see a whole lotta social benefit in forcing DuPont to share its manufacturing process for a colorant...
There are other uses for TiO2 than coloring things, but in any case: so what? We have a patent system, and part of the reason for the patent system is that we want scientific and technical knowledge to be common property. Not just medical and agricultural knowledge; all knowledge. That's why we offer inventors a deal: we will protect your use of your invention for a period of years; in exchange for which, you will tell everyone how to replicate it. Inventors are free to reject the deal (which is what DuPont did) but we shouldn't encourage that sort of behavior by criminalising conduct that would otherwise be a mere civil matter.
See also: copyright extensions made at the behest of Disney and other media giants.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:22 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
There are other uses for TiO2 than coloring things, but in any case: so what? We have a patent system, and part of the reason for the patent system is that we want scientific and technical knowledge to be common property. Not just medical and agricultural knowledge; all knowledge. That's why we offer inventors a deal: we will protect your use of your invention for a period of years; in exchange for which, you will tell everyone how to replicate it. Inventors are free to reject the deal (which is what DuPont did) but we shouldn't encourage that sort of behavior by criminalising conduct that would otherwise be a mere civil matter.
See also: copyright extensions made at the behest of Disney and other media giants.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:22 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
According to the article, "Company executives have said they spend $150 million a year to improve the procedure, even if it’s just to boost production by 1 percent."
Yeah, the did, but they didn't need to. They only had to keep it secretive enough that the FBI could trace any leaks. I'm sure DuPont's engineers are amongst the best in the world, but 70 years of in-house development is unlikely to make the sort of breakthroughs that could have happened if the world's engineers had the same time to look at the technology. Put another way: If DuPont has made such in-roads with their millions of R&D, why didn't they simply license their 50-year old tech cheaply to China while keeping their more modern innovation secret?
I don't think this is the best example to use when talking about trade secrets vs. patents, because it's pretty 'niche', despite the money involved. But, generally, the patent system encourages innovation and rapid implementation (e.g. how most electronics companies and biotech firms operate), while trade secrets are more about protecting market share.
If you're talking about health and biotech, I can't think of any good reason for trade secrets. However, when talking about military technology, trade secrets are essential. This case is about a single chemical compound with very little application in either of those sectors, so it's easier to see why people are drawing the line differently. Should the US government protect a US company from having its trade secrets stolen by a China government-backed Chinese corporation? Certainly, if it were from Lockheed. DuPont? Meh.
posted by kisch mokusch at 7:20 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, the did, but they didn't need to. They only had to keep it secretive enough that the FBI could trace any leaks. I'm sure DuPont's engineers are amongst the best in the world, but 70 years of in-house development is unlikely to make the sort of breakthroughs that could have happened if the world's engineers had the same time to look at the technology. Put another way: If DuPont has made such in-roads with their millions of R&D, why didn't they simply license their 50-year old tech cheaply to China while keeping their more modern innovation secret?
I don't think this is the best example to use when talking about trade secrets vs. patents, because it's pretty 'niche', despite the money involved. But, generally, the patent system encourages innovation and rapid implementation (e.g. how most electronics companies and biotech firms operate), while trade secrets are more about protecting market share.
If you're talking about health and biotech, I can't think of any good reason for trade secrets. However, when talking about military technology, trade secrets are essential. This case is about a single chemical compound with very little application in either of those sectors, so it's easier to see why people are drawing the line differently. Should the US government protect a US company from having its trade secrets stolen by a China government-backed Chinese corporation? Certainly, if it were from Lockheed. DuPont? Meh.
posted by kisch mokusch at 7:20 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
By justifying the theft of company secrets, it seems that many of you are defending the actions of someone whose motivations are even more baldly avaricious, unethical and self-serving than those of DuPont in protecting their process. And it's not like China is using all this stolen IP to better the lot of mankind. So I'm not exactly seeing what virtue you see in such industrial espionage.
posted by Artful Codger at 7:30 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by Artful Codger at 7:30 PM on February 6, 2016
I don't think I justified it. I think I said it shouldn't be in itself criminal to access information just because someone doesn't want you to access it. I think criminal acts should be reserved for things that harm a society or humanity in general and sometimes things that we would call "immoral" if there is widespread agreement. I don't see how this harms anyone other than Dupont and I suspect even Dupont would have a hard time calling it immoral since it's highly likely would just as likely pursue trade secrets held by others. Do you think if this guy had gone to Dupont with blueprints for someone else's even better process, that Dupont wouldn't have bought them?
While I don't think it should be criminal, I'm totally on board with Dupont suing the crap out of the employee who leaked all this and with the state prosecuting any crimes that were committed for the purpose of getting his information. Actually, I'm in favour of prosecuting most crimes committed for any purpose). I think this position is pretty far from "justifying,"
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:04 PM on February 6, 2016
While I don't think it should be criminal, I'm totally on board with Dupont suing the crap out of the employee who leaked all this and with the state prosecuting any crimes that were committed for the purpose of getting his information. Actually, I'm in favour of prosecuting most crimes committed for any purpose). I think this position is pretty far from "justifying,"
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:04 PM on February 6, 2016
If Liew was a Chinese James Bond-type working directly for the Chinese government he would make a better criminal. In this case, he had the exact-same motivations for trying to steal the tech as DuPont had to keep it. Some level of personal gain is the main motivator of most behaviours, I think, so for me, the most interesting part is not Walter Liew, it's about the mechanisms of protection for trade secrets.
Short of having actual spies involved, this would be way more interesting if the culprit in this case was working for another US company, and the recipient of the technology did something amazing with it. Think FBI would be involved then? Or just lawyers?
Presumably, the FBI is primarily going to be concerned with secrets that go overseas, particularly to China, since trade secrets don't enjoy the same protections that patents do and China is notorious for violating IP restrictions.
posted by kisch mokusch at 8:20 PM on February 6, 2016
Short of having actual spies involved, this would be way more interesting if the culprit in this case was working for another US company, and the recipient of the technology did something amazing with it. Think FBI would be involved then? Or just lawyers?
Presumably, the FBI is primarily going to be concerned with secrets that go overseas, particularly to China, since trade secrets don't enjoy the same protections that patents do and China is notorious for violating IP restrictions.
posted by kisch mokusch at 8:20 PM on February 6, 2016
And it's not like China is using all this stolen IP to better the lot of mankind.
Actually, it is. If the process is both cheaper and less polluting than methods in widespread use (as described), then releasing that information into the marketplace will almost certainly result in bettering the lot of mankind. That might not be the motive, but it is the result nonetheless.
However, that's neither here nor there because in Alternative Universe, it could have just as easily been a process that was cheaper via externalized costs, so (in absence of regulatory solutions) releasing the information could result in worsening the status quo instead.
posted by anonymisc at 11:38 AM on February 8, 2016
Actually, it is. If the process is both cheaper and less polluting than methods in widespread use (as described), then releasing that information into the marketplace will almost certainly result in bettering the lot of mankind. That might not be the motive, but it is the result nonetheless.
However, that's neither here nor there because in Alternative Universe, it could have just as easily been a process that was cheaper via externalized costs, so (in absence of regulatory solutions) releasing the information could result in worsening the status quo instead.
posted by anonymisc at 11:38 AM on February 8, 2016
« Older Watch for the bit where it almost flies into the... | I Want to Believe Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mwhybark at 2:05 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]