Mr. Kalfa, who was a portfolio analyst at Bonus, also testified that his work was technical and simple (p. 577, S. 22-33( and that he did not work according to a special method (p. 578, Q. 13-11). These words are consistent with the testimony of Attorney Chen, who later replaced Mr. Zaruk. The latter admitted in his interrogation that he had not encountered "special methods" in the bonus company for the creation of proactive charges in development levies that he was not familiar with before (p. 266, S. 33-28). In addition, Adv. Chen did not claim that this was a work procedure that gave the bonus a competitive advantage over the competitors.
Adv. Shimi Golan admitted in his testimony that there was no element in his work that amounted to a trade secret (see p. 233, S. 19-24). He testified there that Mr. Goldian trained him, and shared his experience with him. When asked whether this knowledge includes an element of a trade secret beyond experience, he replied that "there is no trade secret." More than that; He claimed in his affidavit (at paragraph 12( that after Mr. Tomer Nissenbaum left the company, he decided to "change the work methods and improve them...". This figure reflects on the level of sophistication of the methods in their previous form, which did not reflect a secret component as claimed.
Finally, I will refer in this regard to the testimony of Ms. Hila Levy, who has been employed by the Bonus Company as a case analyst since June 2012. She clarified that as far as she was concerned, the professional secrets to which she was exposed were the company's work procedures (p. 165, S. 21-24). She noted that there were no written procedures that were kept confidential as far as the company was concerned (ibid., para. 29). It further stated that it did not know whether the work methods gave the bonus company a competitive advantage (p. 167, s. 25 ff.). In her testimony, Ms. Levy stated that the professional analyses carried out in the framework of the company's work involved an examination of the provisions of the law and case law (p. 168, S. 24-27( and it is clear that such knowledge cannot amount to a trade secret, when we are dealing with parameters that are open and accessible to all.