Copying Is Losing Control: Field's Intangible Property Research and ISO 56001 IMS for Taiwan

Winners Consulting Services Co., Ltd. reminds Taiwanese corporate executives: when a former employee copies a technical document and leaves, the company's loss is not just the document itself, but the loss of control over critical information. This seemingly simple legal insight is the core argument of Professor Thomas G. Field's 2013 paper, "Crimes Involving Intangible Property," and it highlights a blind spot in intangible asset protection that Taiwanese companies often overlook when implementing the ISO 56001 Innovation Management System (IMS).

About the Author: The Academic Standing of Professor Thomas G. Field

Professor Thomas G. Field, a long-time U.S. law school professor specializing in intellectual property law, has an h-index of 15 and over 909 academic citations, making him a significant voice in the study of intangible property crimes and trade secret protection in the United States. His research spans the Federal Copyright Act (FCA), the Economic Espionage Act (EEA, enacted in 1996), and the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA), systematically clarifying the logic of protecting intangible property within civil and criminal legal frameworks. This 2013 paper is still cited by legal practitioners today because it precisely identifies an under-discussed issue: is the current legal system's response adequate when information is copied rather than stolen?

The Core Contradiction of Intangible Asset Crime: A Lesson from "Copying Papal Documents"

Field's research begins with a surprising case: the conviction of the Pope's personal secretary for copying confidential documents. He uses this real-world event to highlight the fundamental dilemma of modern intangible property crime—when a tangible object is stolen, the original owner loses everything; but when a document is copied, the original owner retains the original yet loses control over the information, along with all present and potential advantages based on the exclusive possession of that knowledge.

Key Finding 1: Civil Remedies First, Criminal Penalties as Reinforcement

Field traces the historical context of copyright law and trade secret protection, pointing out that civil remedies have long been the primary channel for protecting intangible property. However, when civil damages are insufficient to deter theft, or when both the victim and public interest are harmed, criminal penalties must intervene. The Economic Espionage Act (EEA) of 1996 is a federal legislative outcome of this logic, specifically designed to address the theft of trade secrets for the benefit of foreign governments or commercial interests.

Key Finding 2: The Structural Gap in NSPA's Application to Intangible Property

A significant legal contribution from Field is his systematic argument that the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA) does not apply to at least some forms of intangible property—especially those already covered by copyright law or the EEA. Federal courts have gradually formed a consensus that old criminal frameworks designed for tangible property should not be forcibly applied to intangible property crimes. This finding directly influences how companies prioritize legal tools when formulating their trade secret protection strategies.

Key Finding 3: Lack of Uniformity in State Laws Justifies Federal Intervention

In his conclusion, Field explicitly echoes an important argument: the lack of uniformity among state trade secret laws justifies federal-level penalties and expanded jurisdiction. This view was validated three years later in 2016 when the U.S. Congress passed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), establishing a federal civil cause of action for the first time. Field's research can be seen as foreseeing this legislative trend. He also called for the Model Penal Code to more clearly define the scope of "intangibles" to avoid ambiguity in legal application.

Key Implications for Taiwan's Trade Secret Protection and ISO 56001 Innovation Management (IMS) Practices

Although Field's research is centered on U.S. law, its core logic—that the "loss of control" over intangible assets is harder to prove and remedy than the "disappearance of an object"—has direct practical significance for Taiwanese companies. Article 2 of Taiwan's Trade Secret Act stipulates that a trade secret must meet three criteria: secrecy, economic value, and the implementation of reasonable protection measures. If a company cannot prove it has taken "reasonable protection measures," a court may not support its claim, even if the information was indeed copied and leaked.

This is precisely where the ISO 56001 Innovation Management System (IMS) becomes critical. ISO 56001 requires companies to systematically identify, classify, and manage their innovative knowledge assets, creating an auditable record of controls. In response to Field's three key findings, Taiwanese companies should consider a three-tiered strategy:

First Tier: Create a Visualized Inventory of Intangible Assets. Companies must be able to specify which information constitutes a trade secret, its economic value, and the protection measures currently in place. Without systematic documentation, providing evidence in civil or criminal litigation becomes extremely difficult, which directly aligns with Field's emphasis on the foundation of civil remedies.

Second Tier: Design Mechanisms to Detect and Control "Copying Behavior." Field's paper's core message reminds us that the most common form of information leakage is not "stealing hardware" but "copying and transmitting." Technical measures within the IMS framework, such as access control logs, USB usage records, and cloud upload monitoring, are concrete manifestations of "reasonable protection measures" and a necessary foundation for strengthening trade secret protection.

Third Tier: Understand Differences in Jurisdictional Elements for Cross-Border Business. For Taiwanese companies with business in the U.S. market, the federal protection scope of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), the criminal liability under the Economic Espionage Act (EEA), and the local requirements of Taiwan's Trade Secret Act run in parallel but do not completely overlap. A company's IMS design must be able to meet the "reasonable protection" standards of multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.

Looking ahead 3 to 5 years, as new types of intangible asset disputes involving AI-generated content, large language model training data, and supply chain knowledge sharing increase, Field's 2013 warning about the "unclear definition of intangibles" will become even more urgent. Taiwanese companies that fail to establish a forward-looking knowledge asset classification system under the ISO 56001 framework will find themselves in a more disadvantageous evidentiary position in future legal disputes.

How Winners Consulting Services Helps Taiwanese Companies Build a Multi-Jurisdictional IMS Protection Mechanism

Winners Consulting Services Co., Ltd. assists Taiwanese companies in implementing the ISO 56001 international standard for innovation management, establishing a protection mechanism that complies with Taiwan's Trade Secret Act to prevent the leakage of R&D results. In response to the three core findings of Field's paper, we offer the following concrete action plan:

1. Intangible Asset Inventory and Classification (Months 1-3): Systematically create a classified inventory of technical and business secrets as required by ISO 56001, aligning with the three criteria of Article 2 of Taiwan's Trade Secret Act. Establish auditable documentation for each asset to prove that "reasonable protection measures have been taken," ensuring a solid foundation for civil litigation.
2. Design of Copying Behavior Control Mechanisms (Months 3-6): Addressing the "copying, not stealing" leakage model revealed in Field's paper, we design a dual-track control mechanism covering both technical aspects (access logs, DLP systems) and administrative aspects (NDAs, off-boarding procedures), integrating all relevant records into the IMS documentation system.
3. Cross-Border Compliance Review and Gap Remediation (Months 6-12): For companies with U.S. business operations, we assess whether current protection measures simultaneously meet the jurisdictional element requirements of the DTSA and the reasonable protection standards of the EEA. We identify gaps between these and Taiwanese legal requirements, proposing and implementing specific reinforcement plans within the ISO 56001 IMS framework.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the actual legal loss for a company when a former employee 'just copies a document'?

The core loss is not the document itself, but the company's exclusive control over that information. According to Article 2 of Taiwan's Trade Secret Act, a company must prove the information is secret, has economic value, and that reasonable protection measures were taken. Field's paper clarifies that after information is copied, the original holder, while retaining the original, loses all present and potential advantages derived from the exclusive possession of that knowledge. If a company cannot prove it took reasonable measures, such as maintaining access logs, signing NDAs, or classifying information, a court may not recognize the act as trade secret misappropriation. Therefore, systematic documentation under an ISO 56001 IMS framework directly determines a company's ability to provide evidence in litigation.

What are the most common compliance gaps for Taiwanese companies when implementing ISO 56001?

The most common gap is having 'protection awareness without systematic documentation'—companies believe they are protecting trade secrets but lack auditable written records. ISO 56001 requires companies to establish a knowledge asset inventory, define access rights, and record changes in protection measures, all of which are concrete examples of 'reasonable protection measures' under Taiwan's Trade Secret Act. Another common gap is inadequate off-boarding procedures, such as failing to conduct a systematic knowledge transfer audit or confirm data erasure from a former employee's devices. This makes it difficult to prove the timing and scope of a leak after the fact. The need to detect 'copying behavior,' as emphasized in Field's paper, should be incorporated into the planning of technical controls during the IMS design phase.

What are the core requirements and implementation timeline for an ISO 56001 IMS?

ISO 56001, the first international standard for innovation management systems, was officially published in 2019. Its core requirements cover leadership commitment, identification and management of knowledge assets, innovation process design, performance evaluation, and continual improvement. For Taiwanese companies, the most relevant clause for trade secret protection is 'Knowledge Asset Management,' which requires the systematic identification, classification, and protection of information assets that provide a competitive advantage. A typical implementation timeline is 7 to 12 months: Months 1-3 for current state diagnosis and gap analysis; Months 3-6 for designing the management documentation framework; Months 6-9 for internal training and pilot implementation; and Months 9-12 for internal audits and optimization in preparation for formal certification.

How should the costs and expected benefits of implementing an ISO 56001 IMS be evaluated?

Implementation costs vary by company size, with a medium-sized manufacturer typically investing 6 to 18 months of personnel and consulting fees. However, when compared to the median assessed value of trade secrets in U.S. EEA cases (around $5 million) and recent damage awards in Taiwan's Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (often in the millions to tens of millions of NTD), the return on a preventive IMS investment usually far exceeds the cost. More importantly, a complete IMS can significantly reduce a company's evidentiary burden in litigation—systematic records replace hard-to-reconstruct witness testimony, directly increasing the chances of winning a lawsuit. For multinational corporations, an IMS framework that complies with both the DTSA and Taiwan's Trade Secret Act can also mitigate the risk of dual litigation.

Why choose Winners Consulting Services for trade secret protection and Innovation Management System (IMS) matters?

Winners Consulting Services Co., Ltd. is one of the few professional consulting firms in Taiwan with practical experience in ISO 56001 IMS implementation, a background in supporting litigation under Taiwan's Trade Secret Act, and expertise in cross-border intellectual property compliance (including DTSA and EEA). We don't just help companies 'get certified'; we focus on building a management documentation system that provides effective evidentiary support in legal proceedings. Our services begin with a free mechanism diagnosis, guiding companies to establish an ISO 56001-compliant IMS within 7 to 12 months and ensuring that their protection measures meet the evidentiary requirements of the three criteria in Article 2 of Taiwan's Trade Secret Act.