Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Customer List Protection in Avoiding Unfair Business Competition Based on Law Number 30 of 2000 concerning Trade Secrets and Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business Competition Ronaldo, David; Sudaryat, Sudaryat
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Sains Vol. 4 No. 03 (2023): Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Sains
Publisher : CV. Publikasi Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59141/jiss.v4i03.793

Abstract

Trade secrets are part of intellectual property, because the information contains economic value, however, the Trade Secret Act does not specifically state what can be classified as information with economic value, such as customer lists. Customer lists can be classified as information that can be protected by trade secret laws in Indonesia. Therefore, legal efforts are needed to protect this confidential information from acts of violation that can lead to unfair business competition
Perlindungan Hukum Kreditor yang Tidak Mendaftarkan Tagihan terhadap Klausul Perjanjian Perdamaian yang Mengakibatkan Penghapusan Piutang : Studi Kasus Putusan Homologasi Nomor 62/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2021/PN Niaga Sby Kartika Eka Pertiwi; Sudaryat Sudaryat; Ema Rahmawati
Aliansi: Jurnal Hukum, Pendidikan dan Sosial Humaniora Vol. 2 No. 6 (2025): Aliansi: Jurnal Hukum, Pendidikan dan Sosial Humaniora
Publisher : Asosiasi Peneliti dan Pengajar Ilmu Hukum Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.62383/aliansi.v2i6.1332

Abstract

The Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) is a rehabilitative mechanism, but it is susceptible to bad faith abuse. This case study examines Homologation Decision No. 62/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2021/PN Niaga Sby, where judges ratified a composition plan creating a "Previous Trade Creditors" category. This clause, targeting unregistered creditors, effectively resulted in a 95% debt write-off, injuring the Principle of Justice. This research aims to analyze the judges' legal considerations in ratifying this clause and examines their failure to apply material judicial obligations regarding the debtor's bad faith. This research utilizes a normative juridical method with a statute and case study approach. The analysis is qualitative, examining the decision and relevant legislation, supplemented by an interview with a practicing Commercial Court judge. The primary finding is that the judges' considerations were overly positivistic, focusing only on the formal voting quorum (Article 281, UU KPKPU). They failed to execute their imperative duty under Article 285(2)(c) to reject a plan achieved via "dishonest means". The 95% write-off is prima facie bad faith and is punitive, not rehabilitative. The judges misinterpreted the Publicity Principle; non-registration should only cause the loss of voting rights (procedural), not the loss of claim rights (substantive). This failure of material judicial review legitimized the abuse of the PKPU institution. Â