From memory, trade secrets require significant protection systems, eg employment contract terms, vigilance etc to be enforceable. Might happen in some labs where patentable inventions are an expected outcome, eg biotech. But not “normal” academic commerce.

I’ve always been suspicious about “know-how”; I’ve seen consortium agreements that claim some “background know-how”, but they seem to do nothing but add trouble.

We also need to remember that copyright is also a bundle of rights, not all equal (or, in words from my youth, a “maze of twist passages, all different”). In particular, moral rights (not sure if they exist in Oz law) may not be assignable, and include things like the right to attribution (which may need to be explicitly asserted), and a right AGAINST derogatory treatment (which might resonate with the recent Merck/Elsevier scandal).

In Europe, we also have a “Database Right”, which I think is included in Oz copyright in some elastic sense. No-one seems to be quite clear what its effects really are, though )I mean there is controversy, particularly abut case law).

Anyway, the point I wanted to get to is that you need some kind of IP right in order to assert control, even to the extent of choosing a CC licence. Although I do note that many bodies, including museums, seem to want to control rights by contract where they don’t necessarily have a clear IPR.

BTW, being PROFOUNDLY sceptical of the term “knowledge management” in relation to HE, I;m glad you have yet to achieve your ambition!