The People v. Boris Pribich
21 Cal.App.4th 1844 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish the theft of a trade secret under California Penal Code § 499c, the prosecution must provide specific evidence that the allegedly stolen information would give a user an actual advantage over competitors; conclusory assertions that the information is proprietary or would be of 'great interest' are insufficient.
Facts:
- Aquatec, a water cooler company, hired Boris Pribich, an engineer, to develop a new 'freonless' water cooler using a thermal electric chip.
- Aquatec considered the project a trade secret, requiring employees to sign confidentiality agreements and restricting access to the engineering department.
- Pribich was permitted to work on the project at his home using his personal computer in addition to his work computer.
- Pribich fell behind schedule on the project, creating tension with his supervisor, Mark Hancock.
- Hancock demanded that Pribich consolidate all project-related documents and computer files, including those at his home, at the company's plant.
- During a confrontation, Pribich claimed a computer program was his property, deleted files from his work computer in front of another employee, and left the company permanently.
- After leaving, Pribich refused Hancock's demand to return the company materials he possessed at his home, stating he would only do so if Aquatec paid him a 'fair price' for them.
- A subsequent police search of Pribich's home recovered computers, discs, and numerous papers containing drawings, calculations, and tests related to the Aquatec water cooler project.
Procedural Posture:
- The State prosecuted Boris Pribich in a California trial court on charges of unauthorized deletion of computer data and theft of trade secrets.
- A jury found Pribich not guilty of unauthorized deletion of computer data.
- The jury found Pribich guilty of one count of theft of trade secrets, classifying the offense as a misdemeanor petty theft.
- The trial court suspended Pribich's sentence and placed him on probation.
- Pribich, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, Second District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's general assertion that employee-appropriated information would be of 'great interest' to a competitor, without specific evidence showing how that information would create a tangible competitive advantage, suffice to prove the 'advantage over competitors' element required for a theft of trade secrets conviction under California Penal Code § 499c?
Opinions:
Majority - Boren, P. J.
No. The evidence was insufficient to establish that the information appropriated by Pribich constituted a trade secret. To qualify as a trade secret under Penal Code § 499c, the prosecution must prove that the information gives 'one who uses it an advantage over competitors.' The court found that the testimony of Aquatec's vice-president, Hancock, was conclusory and generalized. Hancock stated the information would be of 'great interest' to competitors but failed to provide specific facts showing what tangible advantage would flow from its disclosure. Drawing an analogy to federal FOIA cases, the court reasoned that proving competitive harm requires specific evidence, not generalized allegations. Furthermore, the defense's expert witness provided uncontradicted testimony that the project was scientifically unfeasible and the information was essentially worthless, meaning it could not provide any competitive advantage. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove an essential element of the crime.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the evidentiary standard for the 'advantage over competitors' element in criminal trade secret theft cases in California. It establishes that prosecutors cannot rely on a company's mere assertion of secrecy or value; they must present specific, factual evidence demonstrating a tangible competitive benefit that would result from the information's disclosure. This ruling raises the bar for criminal prosecution, protecting individuals from liability for taking information that, while confidential, may lack actual competitive value, particularly in the context of failed or scientifically unfeasible projects. The case underscores the distinction between confidential information and information that rises to the level of a legally protected trade secret.
Unlock the full brief for The People v. Boris Pribich