These words are especially relevant to our case. Here we are dealing with information obtained in breach of a duty of trust and the duty to act in good faith. Even after the termination of the employment relationship, it should not be used. Certainly not during the period of the engagement between the parties, which was terminated only in May 2020 (see above in paragraph 10).
Public Regulation (Section 7(a)(2) of the Law)
- The defendants also refer to section 7(a)(2) of the law, which establishes an additional possible limitation, according to which a person will not be liable for theft of a trade secret, if "the use of the trade secret is justified due to public policy". According to them, the use of the secret was necessary in light of the need to fight the coronavirus pandemic. This is the mitzva of public policy, it is argued.
This argument must also be rejected.
It is clear that the disclosure of the plaintiffs' secret will be able to advance the public good, as it will advance the public's ability to deal with a deadly epidemic. However, there is a difference between the public good and public policy. The disclosure of many trade secrets will advance the public good, as it will expose it to innovations and sensitive data that will promote competition, increase Torah and glorify it. However, this certainly does not constitute a validation for the theft of trade secrets and the transfer of sensitive information to the public domain.
The protection can be applied, in the typical situation, in cases where the exposure is intended to prevent a malfunction. Thus, in the explanatory notes to the bill, H.H. 2471, dated January 3, 1996, on page 350, it was noted in relation to this section that "in order to protect the public interest, it is proposed to qualify the liability of a person who discloses confidential information whose disclosure is required due to considerations of public policy. For example, the disclosure of information whose use by the owner of the secret will be harmful to public health."