When dealing with cases involving the disclosure of trade secrets, if you try to reduce penalties on the grounds of “promoting competition and innovation”, you need to construct a multi-dimensional defense strategy within the legal framework, combining factual evidence and legal basis. The following are specific steps and suggestions： --- ###**1. Legal basis and defense basis** 1. **Exceptions to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and the Criminal Law** Although Article 9 of the “Anti-Unfair Competition Law” expressly prohibits the infringement of trade secrets, it can be argued that the defendant's behavior is in line with the "public interest exception." For example, if the original company uses trade secrets to monopolize (refer to the "Anti-Monopoly Law") and hinder the development of industry technology, the defendant's disclosure may be regarded as a necessary means to correct market imbalances. 2. **Proportional principle and necessity** It is argued that the defendant only disclosed the necessary information, and that his behavior was the **least damaging way** to break the monopoly and promote technological progress. For example, the disclosed information only relates to key technical barriers that hinder the development of the industry, not all core data. --- ###**2. Construct the core defense argument** 1. **The legitimacy of subjective motivation** -**Non-profit-making purpose**: To prove that the defendant did not obtain personal benefits (such as money and position) from it, but was motivated to promote the development of the industry. -**Industry background**: Provide evidence that the original company formed a dominant market position through trade secrets (such as a market share of more than 50%), resulting in technological stagnation or price monopoly. 2. **The positive impact of objective effects** -**Competition improvement**: Display and disclose data such as the increase of new entrants in the market, the decline in product prices, and the improvement of service quality. -**Innovation promotion**: List cases where the industry has accelerated research and development due to information sharing, such as the application of new technologies or the growth of patents. 3. **Public interest and industry progress** -Citing similar cases (such as the US ”Silicon Valley Trade Secret Litigation" to promote open source jurisprudence), it shows that the protection of trade secrets should not be above the public interest. -Invite expert witnesses (such as economists and technical experts) to demonstrate the negative impact of the original company's technology blockade on the industry as a whole. --- ###**3. Evidence collection and application** 1. **Market analysis report** Entrust a third-party organization to issue an industry competition status report to prove the monopoly behavior of the original company and the market improvement after the defendant's behavior. 2. **Proof of technical necessity** If technical secrets are involved, provide expert appraisal to indicate that the technology has become a common standard in the industry, and the excessive confidentiality of the original company hinders the iteration of the technology. 3. **Evidence of the limits of the defendant's behavior** For example, the defendant only discloses some non-core information, or proactively takes remedial measures (such as requiring the recipient to sign a confidentiality agreement). --- ###**4. Auxiliary reasons for mitigating punishment** 1. **Statutory lenient circumstances** Combining the circumstances of surrender, meritorious service, confession and punishment, we strive for preferential sentencing in accordance with Articles 67 and 68 of the Criminal Law. 2. **Social effect and judicial orientation** Emphasize the exemplary significance of the judgment for the industry: excessive severe punishment may inhibit healthy competition, while moderate tolerance helps encourage technology sharing and market vitality. --- ###**5. Risk warning and balance** -**Avoid abuse of defenses**: It is necessary to clearly distinguish between “promoting competition” and "malicious infringement”, emphasize the **proportionality and necessity** of the defendant's behavior, and prevent it from being refuted as “illegal behavior in the name of competition.” -**Rationality of confidentiality measures**: Question whether the scope of the original company's confidentiality agreement is too wide (such as classifying well-known information as a secret), weakening the legitimacy of its trade secrets. --- ###**6. Examples of reference words** “Although the defendant's behavior formally constitutes the disclosure of trade secrets, its essence is to break the market monopoly formed by the original company through the technical blockade. Evidence shows that confidential information has become a bottleneck in the technology iteration of the industry. The defendant's limited disclosure directly prompted three new companies to enter the market and drove product costs down by 30%. This result is in line with the spirit of the "Anti-monopoly Law" to maintain fair competition legislation, and the court is requested to fully consider its social benefits when sentencing. ” --- Through the above-mentioned strategies, the focus of the case will be shifted from “infringement” to “market correction”, and the multi-dimensional argument combining law, facts and industry background may obtain space for the defendant to reduce or exempt from punishment. In the end, the focus of the defense needs to be adjusted according to the specific circumstances of the case, and to ensure that all claims are supported by solid evidence.