Syncsort v. Innovative Routines.pdf - Trade Secrets Institute

otherwise limited” so that it was not made “generally known to the relevant people” (likepotential competitors). DVD Copy Control Ass’n, 116 Cal. App. 4th at 251.In a similar California case, Silicon Image, Inc. v. Analogix Semiconductor, Inc., Civ. No.07-00635, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96073 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2008), the defendant accessed thetrade secret information on a Chinese website.Following the guidance in DVD Copy Control Ass’n, the court concluded that posts onthe Chinese website did not destroy the secrecy of the information at issue, Silicon Image, 2007U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96073, at *46, because there was “no evidence, that these postings were‘generally known to the relevant people.’” Id. at *45.IRI can only to these two isolated incidents (Korea and Japan) in which informationsufficient to develop the ssu2scl translator was In all three cases the information was quicklyremoved upon discovery and there is no evidence that information became widely available orthat competitors or other unauthorized persons accessed or even attempted to access theinformation.iii.Measures to protect the trade secretHere, Syncsort put in place precautions to ensure that no Syncsort employee, agent orcustomer would disseminate information relating to the command language, such as theSyncSort UNIX Reference Guide, except to those individuals who had signed license agreementsor who were otherwise obligated to keep the information confidential. These measures aredescribed in the fact findings.These are sufficiently reasonable precautions to protect the confidentiality of informationrelated to SyncSort UNIX. IRI has not offered any substantial evidence to suggest thatSyncsort’s precautions are generally insufficient.26