Well then, congratulations. It's only taken you three years to put together crime prevention legislation that has no hope of preventing crime.This makes me wonder whether the push for federalization is because the substantive law will be different. Drafts I've seen, for example, are unclear about whether reverse engineering is a defense. That, to me, is a big deal. Changing the law of reverse engineering would be huge. Or, maybe the goal is to impose inevitable disclosure on California, which has rightly rejected that doctrine so far. I don't know, but it worries me. Those who know my work know that I usually fall much more toward the IP owner's view of life than your average academic. If this federalization thing bothers me, that's saying something.
It also worries Dave Levine (Elon; Princeton fellow) and Sharon Sandeen (Hamline), who've written Here Come the Trade Secret Trolls. They posit that the proposed statutes could have the unintended effect of causing trade secret hold-up cases by small shops that overvalue their secrets that aren't really secret.
I plan to study their argument more fully; I'm not convinced that plaintiffs will gain much purchase against the unwary without some evidence of actual misappropriation, something not required in patent law. That said, most of their article is about the federal proposals, the justifications for the federal proposals, the failures of those justifications, and alternatives that have a better chance at solving the problems that IP owners are actually worried about.
For those interested in this topic, Eric Goldman had a nice piece in Forbes last year discussing the proposals as well.