(p. 23 of P)
- However, the reports were not published publicly (p. 77 pp) and remained within the framework of the plaintiff's internal documents.
- Despite the fact that the daily reports were the property of most of the employees, this does not detract from the plaintiff's claim that they were a trade secret.
- The plaintiff did not request disclosure and examination of the defendant's Skype account, but the defendant admitted that they were there, and it is clear that the plaintiff was exposed to these reports.
- If so, the defendant had the contacts and additional data relating to the plaintiff's customers.
- This is not open information at all. The defendant acquired information regarding each customer:
The Witness, Mr. Jorgenson: When I started working at"Moonshot"?
77"D. Fruchtmann: Before you started working at"Moonshot"?
The Witness, Mr. Jorgenson: I didn't know what the commercial terms were. Anonymous.
77"D. Fruchtmann: And when they linked you to the customer, View the Commercial Terms?
The Witness, Mr. Jorgenson: that were relevant at the time. Yes.
77"D. Fruchtmann: that were relevant to the time but were introduced to you?
The Witness, Mr. Jorgenson: True.
77"D. Fruchtmann: What other commercial terms were presented to you in relation to the client?? The amount of fees he pays?
The Witness, Mr. Jorgenson: This is the commercial terMs. Yes.
(p. 60 p.)
- The defendant studied the profitability analyses of each and every client:
77"D. Fruchtmann: But "Moonshot" Presented you with the profitability analysis?
The Witness, Mr. Jorgenson: Yes.
77"D. Fruchtmann: and also present you with the regulatory requirements from each client to work in the relevant markets from-UK and Ireland?
The Witness, Mr. Jorgenson: These requirements are listed on Google. Yes.
77"D. Fruchtmann: But "Moonshot" Introduced them to you?