Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 15-8 (2015) · Confidentiality of Competitor Information Submitted to Government Agency
Professional obligations conflict, and the board applies no fixed rule for which one wins.
Each resolution is recorded as three edges:
competesWith (the tension),
prevailsOver (the obligation the board allowed to win in this case), and
defeasibleUnder (the situation under which the yielding obligation gives way).
The same tension is then traced across comparable cases, where its resolution shifts with context.
Hover any obligation or state to see its definition; click to open it in OntServe.
How this case resolved it
No obligation was overridden in this case: the board resolved the apparent tension without defeat, as recorded below.
Resolved without defeat
The board resolved the apparent tension here by setting a duty's boundary (specification) or by finding no genuine conflict on the facts (dissolution), rather than by allowing one obligation to prevail over another.
specification
Because Engineer A's knowledge base separates into general engineering competence and Company X specific confidential details, the Board concluded she could act as a faithful agent to Company Y by fully applying the former while excluding the latter, a resolution that would fail if her assigned work could not be performed without relying on Company X's...
What the board concluded
- Engineer A is free to pursue employment with Company Y provided Engineer A does not disclose any confidential and proprietary design information Engineer A learned about Company X during Engineer A’s employment with the government agency and makes this obligation clear to Company Y before accepting employment.