Indeed, "the tension between the freedom of occupation demanded by the employee and the protection of the original employer's trade secrets is not new, and was also recognized in previous case law. The balance between conflicting interests is not easy. The employee's freedom of occupation deserves protection, but so are the employer's property interests, which he has accumulated, presumably, with great effort" (Cohen, at p. 378).
- This tension can give rise to difficult dilemmas. What is the law regarding the work that the employee learns to perform, even if it involves exposure to his employer's trade secrets? In many cases, this work is the only professional skill available to the employee. Against the background of the Section 7(a( to the Commercial Torts Law, entitled "Limitations to Liability", and it was determined as follows -
A person shall not be liable for theft of a trade secret, if one of the following exists:
(1( The knowledge inherent in the trade secret came to him during his work for the owner of the trade secret and this knowledge became part of his general professional skills;
The proper interpretation of the qualification comes to balance between the legitimate interests of the employee on the one hand and the employer on the other. Therefore, it was held, even before the enactment of the law, (see Other Municipality Applications 1371/90 Damati v. Ganor, IsrSC 44(4), 847, 854-855 (1990( (hereinafter: the Damati Case( that "for the purpose of examining the reasonableness of the prohibition of occupation and whether it is to be observed in a sweeping manner, it must be said that certainly not all the information that Damati acquired is of the same degree of confidentiality, and in any case not every information is worthy of the same level of protection. Insofar as we are dealing with general knowledge and even professional skills acquired during the course of work, the public interest requires that the employee can also use these skills for another employer or as a self-employed person. If you say otherwise, it may condemn the employee to abandon the only profession for which he has trained himself, and he may be a burden on the public. This is not the case with special trade secrets that are typical of that specific business, the use of which by the employee may cause harm to the employer. With regard to the latter, and this also includes relationships with suppliers and customers, the employer is entitled to protection."