Hugh

As is normal, I agree with what you have said.

You have to remember that there are risks in doing anything - some of those risks are negligible, others have serious consequences.  You have to work out where to draw the line in the sand and say "I dont care about these risks, but I will not tolerate this thing happening at any cost". You also have to work out the best way of minimising the risk.  Crossing the road can be deadly, but if you cross at the traffic lights, the chances of being knocked down are lessened.  If you wanted to reduce the risk to zero, you could decide never to cross the street, but that would be seen as silly.  You have to get a balance between what you want to achieve (to get to the other side) against the 'cost' of doing that (the inconvenience of walking half a block to the set of traffic lights).

The risk of industrial espionage is a real one for business.  However, I seem to recall hearing that the biggest threat to trade secrets etc comes from within the organisation, not someone breaking in with a micro camera and copying all your documents. I do not know if that is still true or not (or I used to watch far too many spy movies in my youth).  Is there any difference in risk between disgruntled in-house employees, employees in a 'local' service provider and those working for an 'off-shore' service provider? Only a thorough analysis would tell you.

You should also know the risks involved if you have to sue in a foreign country and weigh them up against the risks of being sued on home soil.

The other big factor in business is "The Bottom Line".  If the total cost (which is NOT just a $ value) of sending work offshore is a lot less than all the possible sanctions and inconveniences if things go wrong, then it might make economic sense to do so.  Whether or not that decision makes good business is another issue.

Its all about making an informed decision.  Given that there are thousands of variables and scenarios, an informed decision may be a difficult one to make.

John Lovejoy
[log in to unmask]
my own views, not the views of my employer.

-----Original Message-----

When tapes and other vital information were lost by vendors in the U.S. 
,  our nation of laws dictated that they make the clients and everyone 
at risk aware of that loss.  Failure to do so would have exposed the 
entity who lost the information to all the costs associated with 
Identity Theft, monitoring accounts, credit watches, and legal fees.  
By dealing with corporations within your own country, you have the 
benefit of your laws protecting you.

If I go into XYZ corporation and steal valuable business information, 
engineering secrets, client lists, etc. under our laws I can be 
prosecuted.  In many countries the stealing of competitive information 
is not viewed as sabotage but smart business practice. If they develop 
an advantage they press it no matter what your contract says.

Through the years I have dealt with companies overseas that when it 
suits their purpose withdraw to their own borders and challenge you to 
come after them in their courts. The American legal system with all its 
flaws is based on justice.  One of the leading holders of patents in 
Washington, D.C. is Japan and our courts protect them the same way they 
protect GM.

But every contract overseas should first examine the laws that will 
protect you when a breach occurs. Doing business from Canton, Ohio to 
India or Brazil does have the same protections as Canton, Ohio to 
Atlanta, Georgia.  The protections that exist for corporations here 
just does not exist in certain countries.

Hugh Smith

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance