Sharing trade secrets under the terms of a contract that dictates how one can use the information still retains trade secret protections.
Without a contract: intentional disclosure to the person who receives it generally destroys the trade secret status of the information, because the “owner” of the information didn’t do a good job trying to protect it.
With a contract: intentional disclosure to a person under the terms of the contract makes the contract’s own protections of the information relevant, and misuse of the information by the recipient can get them sued under the contract. Plus, the information itself probably retains trade secret protection so that even if that person gives the information to a third party who can’t be sued under a contract they never agreed to, there are still rights to protect that trade secret as property.
I’d be shocked if any paid API use isn’t under a robust, enforceable contract. The only question is whether the contract language itself effectively prohibits distillation.
Can you name a country where signing up for a paid account to an online service, and using the service and paying the invoice that comes in, doesn’t form a legally binding contract between the customer and the vendor?
Most countries in the EU don’t allow for consumer rights to be overridden by an EULA.
Similarly, I can’t have a contract with you to murder me. It’s illegal and me being a willing participant in it does not make it legal, even if I sign a contract.
An EULA is legally binding, but only the parts that aren’t in conflict with consumer rights, meaning most of any EULA is going to be invalid.
If a company voluntarily discloses a trade secret to a member of the public, it ceases to be a trade secret, so I doubt that would apply here either.
Sharing trade secrets under the terms of a contract that dictates how one can use the information still retains trade secret protections.
Without a contract: intentional disclosure to the person who receives it generally destroys the trade secret status of the information, because the “owner” of the information didn’t do a good job trying to protect it.
With a contract: intentional disclosure to a person under the terms of the contract makes the contract’s own protections of the information relevant, and misuse of the information by the recipient can get them sued under the contract. Plus, the information itself probably retains trade secret protection so that even if that person gives the information to a third party who can’t be sued under a contract they never agreed to, there are still rights to protect that trade secret as property.
I’d be shocked if any paid API use isn’t under a robust, enforceable contract. The only question is whether the contract language itself effectively prohibits distillation.
Depends on the agreement. Contracts (like EULAs) can cover a fair bit
EULAs aren’t legally binding in sane countries.
Can you name a country where signing up for a paid account to an online service, and using the service and paying the invoice that comes in, doesn’t form a legally binding contract between the customer and the vendor?
Most countries in the EU don’t allow for consumer rights to be overridden by an EULA.
Similarly, I can’t have a contract with you to murder me. It’s illegal and me being a willing participant in it does not make it legal, even if I sign a contract.
An EULA is legally binding, but only the parts that aren’t in conflict with consumer rights, meaning most of any EULA is going to be invalid.
Ok, do these countries also make a contract not to distill LLMs void, as well?