The Witness, Mr. Jorgenson: Dawn.
77"D. Fruchtmann: And what did the standard overlap that you refer to in the section include? 20?
The Witness, Mr. Jorgenson: From what I remember, A few days of explaining concepts and that's it.
77"D. Fruchtmann: Now from your statement that"Moonshot" It was required to introduce you to the field of appellation, I understand that you were not familiar with this specific field before starting work at"Moonshot"?
The Witness, Mr. Jorgenson: True. I've never dealt with epilepsy.
(p. 58) (And this is also confirmed on p. 61, line 11 of the p)
- The defendant did not receive any formal training from the plaintiff, but was exposed in the course of his work to work with the plaintiff's clients and to the work methods (pp. 30-31 pp.).
- The defendant tried to dwarf the degree of his training by the plaintiff, but the defendant had not worked in the field in the past, prior to working for the plaintiff:
77"D. Fruchtmann: It is true that the company also woo that you have worked for in the past and also in a company spinomenal where you worked, You haven't traded in an affiliate through gambling comparison sites in England and Ireland?
The Witness, Mr. Jorgenson: True.
(p. 58)
- Training does not have to be through courses or continuing education, even the resources that a company invests in training a new employee come within the scope of training.
- Some of the senior employees came to the plaintiff without any training and without any background, and they accumulated their experience over the years. Thus, for example, Simcha himself came to the plaintiff after working as a lawyer (pp. 27-28 of P.). The knowledge that the plaintiff accumulated over the years was passed on to the defendant. If so, it is a matter of studying and training the plaintiff in the field of application.
- The defendant's training for the job was carried out by three people: Eliran Ozan, Dudu Mordechai, the manager of the PPC department , and Shahar Simcha. And we will explain. Most of the plaintiff's work is in a specific niche of application, which operates only on Google's search engines in certain countries. At first, Simchat taught the defendant the day-to-day conduct, shared work meetings with customers and flew with him to gaming conferences around the world. The plaintiff taught the defendant about the work and its environment at the macro level (the markets, the regulation, the licenses required for the conduct of the activity, the prerequisites that are required of customers in order to work with them).
- Uzan introduced the plaintiff to the customers in the field of gaming that the plaintiff managed to recruit from 10/18 to 2/20 (Casino+888, 888, IVY Brands, Leo Vegas, Sun Vegas, 32Red, Unibet, Conquestador, MRQ).
- Eliran Uzan and Shahar Simach introduced the defendant to the plaintiff's customers in the field of gambling and the contacts with whom he should be in contact, presented him with the commercial terms that were agreed with them and sales techniques unique to the world of betting epilation. This information is of great value that the plaintiff acquired over the years in Sisyphean work. The defendant confirms in his interrogation that he was presented with the commercial terms of each client he was about to meet with, including profitability data, regulatory requirements and contacts (p. 60 L).
- His uncle Mordechai and Shahar Simcha presented the defendant on an ongoing and daily basis with confidential reports prepared by the plaintiff's PPC team. This is an analysis of hundreds of data received from Google on a daily basis, from which reports are produced that present the relevant data required to work with customers. These reports helped to increase the profit of each client and the client's payment to the plaintiff. These reports are confidential and were presented to the defendant and are not disclosed to all of the plaintiff's employees, but in accordance with the field of activity of the employees. Only 3 people were exposed to the reports (Shachar Simcha, Dudu Mordechai and the defendant).
- Simcha and the defendant went through the data, reports and graphs, and defined tasks.
- The defendant learned the work from the plaintiff (paragraphs 14-20 of the happy affidavit).
- Therefore, when the defendant was hired, he was trained to work in the field of appellation. Therefore, there is a basis for the determinations in the employment agreement regarding confidentiality, limitation of competition, and prohibition of contacting the plaintiff's customers.
Does the employment agreement protect trade secrets?
- The defendants claim that the plaintiff's claims regarding the theft of a trade secret are based solely on suspicions (p. 50 p.m.) and that the plaintiff did not attach any evidence that information was extracted from her. In the evidentiary proceeding, it was claimed that the defendant returned a formatted computer (a new claim that was raised in the cross-examination) (p. 38 of P). This argument should be rejected because it is an extension of the façade.
- Indeed, it was not proven that the defendant physically issued documents or copied documents of the plaintiff to his computer, but there is no dispute that the defendant, according to his testimony, had all the contacts of the plaintiff's customers on Skype as well as the daily reports (p. 61 p.):
77"D. Fruchtmann: What depends? To, When you switched to"Kulamed" And you wanted to work with a particular client, You needed the contact details, True?