When dealing with cases involving the leakage of trade secrets, if you want to seek mitigating penalties for the defendant from the perspective of “promoting competition and innovation”, you need to carefully balance the legal, ethical and factual basis. The following are step-by-step legal strategies and precautions： --- ### **1. Legal basis: clear and invocable exemption or derogation clauses** -**Exceptions to antitrust and public interest**： Some countries (such as the United States "Defend Trade Secrets Act" or the European Union "Trade Secrets Directive") allow exemptions from liability for disclosing trade secrets under certain circumstances (such as exposing illegal acts and protecting the public interest). If the defendant's behavior involves exposing illegal acts such as monopoly and fraud, such clauses may be invoked. -**Competition law Defense**： If confidential disclosure objectively breaks the market monopoly (such as proving that the original trade secret holder abused his dominant position in the market), the principle of “promoting competition” in the competition law can be cited to advocate that disclosure has social benefits. --- ### **2. Fact construction: Prove the positive impact of behavior on industry innovation** -**Empirical evidence of technological progress**： Evidence is collected that the information disclosed or used by the defendant directly promotes technological iteration (such as open source alternatives, cheaper products), and that the advancement cannot be achieved within a reasonable time through legal means (such as reverse engineering). -**Market effect analysis**： Provide industry reports or expert testimony to prove that the original trade secrets have led to market rigidity (such as excessive patent barriers), and that the defendant's actions have activated competition, reduced prices, or improved consumer welfare. --- ### **3. Subjective motivation argument: dilute malice and emphasize the purpose of public welfare** -**Lack of subjective malice**： Prove that the defendant has no intention of making profit or harm (such as not selling secrets to competitors, but for public discussion or industry standard setting). -**Industry improvement motivation**： Evidence such as emails, meeting minutes, etc. show that the defendant aims to solve industry pain points (such as environmental protection, safety and other public interest issues). --- ### **4. Principle of proportionality: Advocating a mismatch between punishment and damage** -**Damage controllability**： If the original right holder has not taken reasonable confidentiality measures (such as not signing an NDA), or the actual loss is small (such as the technology is outdated), it can be argued that excessive penalties will inhibit innovation. -**Alternative remedy**： It is recommended to replace criminal penalties with civil compensation (such as reasonable license fees), or to promote reconciliation between the two parties (such as cross-license agreements). --- ### **5. Case and expert support** -**Citing precedents**： Refer to similar cases (such as the United States*Waymo v. Some of the information in Uber* was identified as “non-core” and liability was reduced), emphasizing the justice's tolerance for innovation. -**Expert testimony**： Hire economists or technical experts to prove that the defendant's behavior meets the long-term innovation needs of the industry. --- ###**Risk warning** -**Avoid admitting illegality**： The protection of trade secrets is strict, and it is directly recognized that “disclosure” may actually infringe. It is necessary to focus on the “defense of legality” (if the information does not constitute a trade secret in the legal sense). -**Balance strategy**： Excessive emphasis on “promoting competition” may irritate the plaintiff or the judge, and it is recommended to combine multi-angle arguments such as ”no actual harm“ and ”the defendant's good faith". --- ###**Final recommendation** -**Priority negotiation**： Promoting a settlement with the plaintiff (such as a promise to stop using + symbolic compensation) is more secure than a court defense. -**Phased defense**： 1. Legal elements for questioning trade secrets； 2. If established, then claim the cause of derogation. By systematically combining legal provisions, factual evidence and social benefit arguments, it is possible to obtain space for the defendant to reduce punishment, but it is highly dependent on the specific circumstances of the case. It is recommended to cooperate with professional intellectual property lawyers to formulate detailed strategies.