In application to our case, it could have been argued that even if the non-compete clause to which Kahane entered into is not within the scope of "Cutting down the tree" (as I stated above), then it is within the scope of "Cutting it off" of "Industry" In a tree that is a husband "A single dominant industry", and as such it is equivalent to"Cutting down the tree"; For example, it could be argued that Kahane can earn money only (and at least primarily) from his skills in the field of electron microscopy, so that the non-competition clause in this field in fact prevents him from earning a living through his skills in a similar occupation in terms of status and salary.
I am of the opinion that Kahane has not been able to show that the non-compete clause amounts to the termination of the "A single dominant industry":
First, I am not convinced that Kahane's professional occupation in the electron microscope market should be seen as a reason for "A single dominant industry", and that the general management capabilities to which the non-compete clause does not apply should not be regarded as"Earnings Industries" similar in terms of status or salary. In this context, it should be noted that Kahane continued to serve in the same position and at the same salary levels at Eisenberg during and after the non-competition period. It is clear that these circumstances are far from the example given by the judge Y. Amit In the matter Barnea As for circumstances in which the possibility of continuing to earn a living from any occupation is not sufficient (a pilot whose non-compete agreement does not prevent him from making a living as a waiter or security guard in a mall).
SecondI will also assume in Kahane's favor that these general management abilities should not be taken into account and that only his professional occupation in the field of electron microscopy should be considered as a source of income appropriate to his skills, I am of the opinion that Kahane has not been able to prove that the non-compete clause should be regarded as such that:"Cut off" The"The Single Dominant Industry". As noted above, the District Court held, as a matter of fact, that Kahane's skills in the field of electron microscopes did not fade at the end of the non-competition period, and that at the end of this period, he was not prevented from reaping the fruits of his skills in the field (see paragraph 54 of the District Court's judgment quoted above In the paragraph 52 in my opinion). Therefore, it is not possible to determine that "Cut off" Same "Industry" In such a way that it will not be able to grow more fruit in the future.