【商业秘密法规】如何理解中国法律关于商业秘密案件“不为公众所知悉”的规定？
【译者注】本文系为民法律服务网吴锦熤律师翻译而成，仅供学习所用。原文作者系 "Luo Yanjie"，原文网址为：//www.chinaiplawyer.com/understand-not-public-trade-secret-cases-china-law/。
鉴于译者水平有限，译文难免出现错误，望读者批评指正。
商业秘密必须“保密”，商业秘密中的信息必须“不为公众所知悉”。简单地讲，指信息或技术一般不会被公众所知悉或直接通过公开渠道获得。今天，我们想跟读者分享中国法律对此的一些规定：
一、司法解释中关于“不为公众所知悉”的释义
《最高人民法院关于审理不正当竞争民事案件应用法律若干问题的解释》对“不为公众所知悉”释义如下：
有关信息不为其所属领域的相关人员普遍知悉和容易获得，应当认定为反不正当竞争法第十条第三款规定的“不为公众所知悉”。
具有下列情形之一的，可以认定有关信息不构成不为公众所知悉：
（一）该信息为其所属技术或者经济领域的人的一般常识或者行业惯例；
（二）该信息仅涉及产品的尺寸、结构、材料、部件的简单组合等内容，进入市场后相关公众通过观察产品即可直接获得；
（三）该信息已经在公开出版物或者其他媒体上公开披露；
（四）该信息已通过公开的报告会、展览等方式公开；
（五）该信息从其他公开渠道可以获得；
（六）该信息无需付出一定的代价而容易获得。
二、对解释的分析
作者对司法解释的分析如下：
1、“不为公众所知悉”是相对的。
所谓“公众”，是指社会不特定的多数人。但对商业秘密而言，其对应的公众主要是指与权利人具有竞争关系的群体。因此，即使有权利人之外的其他人知悉商业秘密，也并不必然导致信息泄漏。举例讲，权利人的雇员、销售人员和合伙人在交易中都将知道商业秘密，但只要权利人与这些人签署保密协议，让他们对信息保密，这就使得这些信息不会泄漏。
2、其他人非法获取商业秘密并不必须导致商业秘密不构成“不为公众所知悉”。
司法解释中提到的情形（不构成“不为公众所知悉”）都是在合法情况下。如果有人非法获取信息，比如通过行贿雇员取得，则并不会导致信息构成“为公众所知悉”。但如果因信息被恶意公布导致第三方通过合法途径取得该信息，则将导致商业秘密不构成“不为公众知悉”。所以，一旦发现信息被盗窃后，权利人应当立即采取措施（举报、报警）阻止商业秘密被恶意公布。
附原文如下：
How to Understand “Not Known to the Public” in Trade Secret Cases by China Law?
By Luo Yanjie
Trade secret must be “secret”, a message must be “non-public” for being trade secret. Generally speaking, Information or technique is not generally known for the public and cannot be directly obtained from the open channel. Today we would like to share the topic in China law with readers as follows:
I. The definition of “non-public” in the judicial interpretation
<Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Hearing Civil Cases Involving Unfair Competition> defines the “non-public” as follows:
As for the relevant information that is not commonly known or easily accessible to relevant people in the field of the information, it shall be identified as the information “non-public” as set forth in the third section of the Article10 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
“For any of the following events, the relevant information shall not be identified as non public:
1. The information is the general knowledge of the people in its technical or economic field or the practice of the industry;
2. The information only covers such contents as the dimensions, structures, materials, and the simple assembly of the components of the goods, and upon its entry into the market, relevant public may directly obtain it by observing the goods;
3. The information has been disclosed in public in publications or other media;
4. The information has been made known to the public in such forms as public seminars and exhibitions;
5. The information can be obtained from other channels;
6. The information is easy to obtain without certain cost.”
II. The Analysis of interpretation
The author Analysis the judicial interpretation as follows:
1, “Non-public” is relative
The so-called “public” refers to no-specific most people in society. But for Trade secrets, the relative public for “secret” is that main body having competition with right people. Therefore, even there has people besides the right person other knowing trade secret, it will not necessarily lead to information losing “secret”. For example, employees, distributors, partners of right people will know trade secret during business, as long as the right people signed a confidentiality agreement with these units, make them have to keep the information secret, it will not make the information loss “secret”.
2, others obtaining trade secrets illegally does not necessarily make the trade secret loss ” secret ”
The situations mentioned in judicial interpretation are based on being legal. If others get the information illegally, such as getting by bribery employee of right people, will not make information lose “secret”. But if information published maliciously, so the third party can through legal channels to obtain, it will make the trade secrets lose “secret”. Therefore, after found the information is stolen, right people shall immediately take measures (prosecution, call the police) to avoid malicious public trade secret.
