Was Shurgard v.Safegaurd correctly decided, in my opinion? Yes. This decision is based on two conclusory definition created by the court.
1. “Authorization” – Authorization of usage, regardless of the medium, is an inherently ambiguous term. Whenever a person authorizes usage of any personal property, whether it be personal physical property or abstract internet information, that authorization is always given within the confines of boundaries. If those boundaries did not exist, the full authorization given to the third party would be in a form of interest in ownership rights, not access to temporary usage for a confined purpose. The court correctly decided the case in defined limits of agency authorization. No company (or informed person) would willingly give over full ownership of protected property to a third party without limiting that access to the loyalty to the interest owner or allow acquisition by that third party of adverse interest to the interest of the owner. Therefore, I think the court correctly included corporate policy of agency, ownership, and the simple trust of employee confidentiality into their definition of the boundaries of authorized use of that same corporate information regarding its protected trade secrets.
2. “Damages” – In an effort to stick within the page limit, I want to make one brief comment. It is refreshing to see the court define damages to something more then a tangible monetary value. It is a especially refreshing in my recent outrage with the Dwyer v. American Express Case (where monetary damages could not be proven, and no relief was found in light of violation of the law).. I could not agree more with an opinion that takes such a wide and future thinking view of what damages may define in an increasingly internet-abstract definition of property, privacy, and society. I am glad the court looked further then words, and cash value, to evaluate what one person (or one corporation) may see as damages, and to take the damage perspective as far as personal perceived harm.