"Trade secret" is not a magic word. An employer claiming the existence of a "trade secret" must prove its existence. In other words, he must describe and detail what the secret is. A general description or a general claim about the existence of a "secret" should not suffice, as happened in this case, but rather indicate for example a certain software, formula, formula, a certain customer list, a certain process, etc. As part of proving the "trade secret", the previous employer must also prove the scope of the trade secret and the time it must remain a "secret". Moreover, the previous employer must prove that it is a "secret" and that it has taken reasonable measures to ensure the protection of the trade secret.
These words, which were ruled before the entry into force of the Commercial Torts Law, are also appropriate afterwards, and are consistent with its definition.
- When it comes to definite cases, JIt is easy for the person imposing the restriction to establish its validity, and to fend off attempts to classify it as contradicting public policy. But even in less obvious cases, it will be possible to justify its existence by pointing to data, according to which the limited party received adequate compensation for the said limitation, which was assigned to him. Thus, for example, it is possible to point to special and comprehensive training Awarded to him. For an extra chargeReceived, which can be "colored" As a result of the limitation, as opposed to the conditions of TheGeneral and ongoing employment.
In the Saar case , the Honorable President Barak mentioned that "it is possible to consider, inter alia, the question of whether the employment contract guarantees the employee a salary (full or partial( during the period of limitation. This (known as 'garden leave'( is accepted in England [...]. In Germany, the law itself stipulates that a contractual stipulation restricting freedom of occupation will be legal only if the sender promises to pay the agent at least half of his salary during the period of limitation (section 74(a( of the Commercial Code). The case law extended this approach to all employee-employer relations [...]" (ibid., at p. 876). In the Barnea case, the question of proper taxation of grants granted in respect of being subject to non-compete clauses was discussed, indicating that such grants exist in practice in the commercial and economic reality that prevails in our places.