The Witness, Mr. Jorgenson: Yes.
77"D. Fruchtmann: You didn't know before you came to"Moonshot"?
The Witness, Mr. Jorgenson: I haven't worked in appilation before.
77"D. Fruchtmann: You didn't work in the appellation. And we also gave you the details of the relevant contact, In customers?
The Witness, Mr. Jorgenson: In many cases, I brought the contact.
77"D. Fruchtmann: I'm talking about, Let's start with those contacts.
The Witness, Mr. Jorgenson: Rishonim Yes.
77"D. Fruchtmann: Rishonim Yes. In the same customers,
The Witness, Mr. Jorgenson: Yes.
77"D. Fruchtmann: And when you say you brought, You brought this up as part of your work in"Moonshot"?
The Witness, Mr. Jorgenson: Yes.
(p. 61 p.)
- The plaintiff's website lists the names of the customers, but not the commercial terms (p. 76).
- The website does not publish the names of the contacts (p. 77).
- This is not only a list of customers, but information that the defendant has accumulated in the course of his work that touches on these customers.
- Even if the customers are advertised on the plaintiff's rating and comparison sites (paragraph 50 of the defendant's affidavit) and even if the customers have a built-in affiliate program that all that is required is to go to that client's website and sign up for his program and the client then contacts and contacts the marketing company by email in order to cooperate (paragraph 83 of Ouzan's affidavit), the long-term relationship with the customers and the contacts, Knowledge of the commercial terms is not visible to everyone.
- The defendant claimed that in the field of epilation, the customers themselves disclose the details of the transaction with the competitors as part of the negotiations with the companies that deal with the epilation, such as the client's transactions and costs, in order to obtain better deals with the competitor. Therefore, the defendant knew details about the customers' engagements with competitors (including the plaintiff) from the customers, regardless of the defendant, but this claim was not proven.
- The defendant handled comparison sites that the plaintiff developed in the field of online gambling. Through the plaintiff, the defendant became acquainted with dozens of contacts with the plaintiff's customers in the field of gaming, and contractual agreements with the customers that included the commercial data (paragraph 32 of the plaintiff's affidavit). The defendant was exposed to the plaintiff's internal reports, in which an analysis of the gambling sites that were under the defendant's responsibility was conducted. These reports were used to improve transactions with customers and increase the plaintiff's profits.
- The defendant had a great deal of information in his possession (p. 77 of P).
- The plaintiff and the defendant use Google's services. Indeed, all the companies in the field are Google customers and receive tools from Google. The defendant, as a customer of Google, also uses Google's algorithm (paragraphs 72-75 of the defendant's affidavit), and each company also uses the tools that Google provides, such as SEM RUSH, but each company does a different analysis. The defendant studied the plaintiff's work methods. In the defendant's work for the plaintiff, the plaintiff learned to use the same algorithMs. The methods of work are information that is considered a trade secret.
Interim Summary
- As emerged from the evidence, the defendant was exposed during his work with the plaintiff to all of the plaintiff's transactions and ventures, its work methods, its services, its products, its customers, and its developments. The contacts, the commercial terms with each client, the revenue and profits of each client - are the trade secret.
Was the employment agreement violated?
- The defendant stated that he served as the head of the defendant's business development department (paragraph 2 of the defendant's affidavit) when he worked for the plaintiff as a business development manager:
Adv. Fruchtman: I get it. Now today you are in charge of the entire department as well, I refer you to section 67.4 of Yogev's affidavit. Are these customers under your warranty? The clients listed in section 67.4 according to Yogev's affidavit?