You should read the link. The lawsuit is about outright theft of proprietary intellectual property/trade secrets and zero to do about "hiring practices".
Totally disagree with that. If AiroTec or Mitsubishi had not hired any of those people there could not be the current lawsuit. Intellectual property theft lawsuits are named and structured differently.
AeroTec and Mitsubishi would be a co-conspirators of theft. The venue location is because AeroTec is based in Seattle. Since the AeroTech people very likely signed a nondisclosure agreement when AeroTec hired them, there could be some serious prison time for anyone involved with the theft.
Hogwash. I've never heard of anyone going to prison over intellectual property theft in the western world (and they are just killed in other parts of the world before any trial ever happens).
Furthermore: The nondisclosure agreement with AeroTec would not directly affect any information gotten from Bombardier. It is the terms and conditions (and enforcability of those terms and conditions) for the non-disclosure agreement with Bombardier that is in play... and such things usually don't play across international boundaries (except within the EU where the EU has agreed on a law that jointly applies to all EU Countries).[/quote]
There is a big misunderstanding here. First off: It is rarely not legal to take copies of many documents from companies - unless those documents are specifically marked "Proprietary" or "Confidential." The courts have routinely held that general knowledge documents are not trade secrets (there was a big case in California where one company was claiming that even how you spaced diodes on a circuit board was "trade secret" - and the judge rejected it, and many other similar claims outright - and even stated publically in court that what the company had been claiming as trade secrets and proprietary was obviously not.
Thus, a big question is were there actually any real trade secrets in the documents emailed from the companies. If the same documents have been sent to other companies (say who produce parts) without adequate legal protections and claims in place, which were demonstrably enforced if violated - they are not trade secrets or intellectual property.
The second big misunderstanding is that those "one sided" nondisclosure agreements for which you had no ability to negotiate the terms will stand up in court. A lot of them, and a lot of very specific terms in others are just tossed as it relates to the case.
I would guess that Mitsubishi will be legally off the hook unless Bombardier can show that the documents were clearly marked proprietary or confidential, with full and proper previous controls; and that the documents were directly sent to and used by Mitsubishi (and not AeroTec).
AeroTec may have other issues. But, again once those documents cross international borders a very major case of legal standing and rights exists. Unless the US and Canada has signed a treaty that specifically addresses this legal issue (I have never heard of such a treaty) Bombardier likely has Zero legal case for any documents that moved from Canada to another country. If AeroTec directly received and used such documents from Bombardier employees employed in Kansas... Then AeroTec likely has legal liability -and they should be sued accordingly.
The fact that AeroTec is a sub contractor to Mitsubishi does not make Mitsubishi legally responsible for AeroTec practices, unless it can be shown that Mitsubishi KNEW that AeroTec was violating significant laws.
As such, I see this case more about lawyers filing a case intended more for them to make money than for Bombardier to recover actual damages.
I also suspect that Mitsubishi will be quickly dismissed from the case.
Have a great day,