Another case that comes into consideration is a situation in which a restriction on exposure is imposed by virtue of a contractual provision that itself contradicts public policy, and improperly harms competition.  Or when the claim of confidentiality of the owner of the secret itself rests on an improper and wrongful basis (Deutsch, at p.  700).  Or when the exposure is consistent with the public's right to know, etc.  A list of cases of this type is not closed, as befits a framework concept such as "public policy."

111. The case before us is not like that at all. If the defendants' goal was to promote the public good, then they could have continued to assist the plaintiffs within the framework of the consulting services of S.I.   They could have contributed to opening the detector.  They could have negotiated with the plaintiffs in relation to any commercial cooperation.  Alternatively, they could have worked on their own independent developer, based on their own independent research.  Certainly, in the circumstances of the case, there was no justification for the theft of a trade secret, contrary to the contract and the duties of trust.

112. The defendants' interpretation of the defense is far-reaching, contradicts the basic purposes of the Commercial Torts Law, and must be rejected.

The assignment of rights to plaintiff No.  4, RW, does not drop the ground under the lawsuit

113. Another front of dispute between the parties relates to the fact that plaintiff No. 4, RW, remained as a litigant, since the plaintiffs' rights were assigned to it, and there is no dispute that it was not a party to the original agreement between the defendants and the plaintiffs.
114. According to the defendants, plaintiffs 1-3 cannot rely on such an assignment of rights. They raise claims on the contractual-procedural level and on the level of tort law. I will examine them in their order.

The contractual-procedural level

115. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs concealed from the court during the trial the fact that plaintiffs 1 and 3 were deleted from the records of the Registrar of Companies in Singapore, after Mr. Ram declared that they no longer had any activity or assets. In addition, plaintiff 4 was not assigned rights from plaintiff 2, since the plaintiffs' agreement to dismiss plaintiff 2's claim constitutes an admission by a party that has no rights at all, and therefore in any case it will not be able to assign anything.

The defendants further note that the contract with them was signed only with Ram Holdings, and therefore their obligation vis-à-vis other companies that were not parties to it should not be recognized.  It was further claimed that the plaintiffs did not claim that Ram Holdings had a trade secret.  Certainly she could not assign anything to plaintiff No.  4.

116. On the other hand, according to the plaintiffs, on June 25, 2019 - prior to the filing of the claim in question - the rights of Ram Holdings were assigned to Ram Global - plaintiff 1 - with the consent of the defendants, in accordance with clause 11.4 of the agreement, which expressly states that the plaintiffs are entitled to assign their rights to another party, as long as the plaintiffs are not a third party. Inthe circumstances of the case, this is not a third party, since all the companies are under the control of Mr. Ram.

In the original statement of claim dated June 4, 2020, and in the amended statement of claim dated August 17, 2020, Holdings was named as plaintiff 1, and only in the second amended statement of claim dated June 20, 2022 (the third statement of claim in the case), the identity of plaintiff 1 was changed from Holdings Holdings to Global.  All of this shows that the defendants did not see a problem in real time with the assignment of rights, and only now are they trying to raise claims in an attempt to evade liability.

117. After review, I found that the defendants' arguments that the claim should be dismissed should be dismissed in light of alleged defects in the assignment of rights to plaintiff No. 4, and due to the court's failure to update the court on developments.
118. First of all , it should be noted that in my decision of June 13, 2022, I approved the replacement of plaintiff 1, and noted that there was no need to change the remedies. I also determined in the same decision that there was room for the plaintiffs to be updated on the developments, and in view of the certain awkwardness that was created, I imposed costs on them. Hence, the failure to update does not justify the summary dismissal of the claim as a whole.

Second, the plaintiffs are correct that in real time the defendants accepted their interpretation and recognized the exchange made by Mr. Ram, between one company in his cluster of companies (Ram Holdings) and another company (Ram Global).  The defendants did not complain about this, but accepted this interpretation of the agreement, according to which Ram Holdings was mistakenly inherited as a party to it instead of Global.  In addition, when the various companies are all controlled by the same entity, Mr. Ram, there is no reasonable justification for the defendants to object to the assignment of the said rights.  In any event, a reasonable justification based on the circumstances of the concrete matters has not been established.