When defending an employee who is being sued for stealing confidential company information, one can try to reframe his actions from the perspective of an interest in technological innovation. However, this defense needs to be carefully constructed to ensure that legal liability is not denied, but that the context of his actions can be provided. Here are a few possible defense ideas: 1. **Curiosity and innovation drive**: - Emphasize that the employee has a strong interest in technological innovation and is eager to learn about cutting-edge technologies and industry trends. - He may have a pure curiosity and hope to improve his professional ability by studying the company's technology, rather than for personal or financial gain. 2. **Misunderstood motives**: - The employee may believe that he is helping the company improve its technological capabilities because he plans to propose improvements or new projects based on this. - Indicate that this is an internal innovation attempt and his original intention is to promote technological development within the company. 3. **Internal process and poor communication**: - There may be a misunderstanding of company policies and information use regulations, and he did not realize that his actions may violate company policies. - Emphasize that the company may have deficiencies in information management, training and communication, which led to the employee's failure to accurately understand the relevant regulations. 4. **Situational Misjudgment**: - If the company encourages employees to innovate and take the initiative in research, this behavior may be misunderstood by the employee as a positive behavior. - He may be trying to bring value to the company, but unfortunately crossed the legal and ethical boundaries in the execution process. 5. **Good intention misuse**: - Try to show that the employee's behavior has no malicious or economic motivation, but is driven by pure technological curiosity. - Mention that he has no intention of leaking information to the outside, nor does he have any intention to harm the interests of the company. Ultimately, the core of the defense is to portray the employee as a person with a passion for technology who unfortunately took the wrong path in his pursuit of technological advancement and personal development, rather than a deliberate malicious act. This angle may soften the understanding of his behavior, but the actual responsibility issue still needs to be resolved through legal means.