III. The information comprised LH was not generally known or readily ascertainable by proper means of other persons.
LH meets the second element of the OUTSA, “Is not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann § 1333.61(D) (LexisNexis 20xx). The Mack court explained this element when they found that the computer program was not readily ascertainable because the program was not available for purchase over the internet or to the public. 2006-Ohio-2748 at 19. The program could only be attained by request from the dealerships to Mack trucks. Id. Then the request would go through a vender check by Mack to make sure the dealer was authorized to have the program. Id. The program was then sent directly to the dealer that requested a copy. Id.
Defendant will try to analogies the Eight District Court of Appeals, where they held that a wheelchair and wheelchair controller were not trade secrets. Jacono v. Invacare Corp. 2006-Ohio-1596 (Ohio Ct, App. 2006). The court held that since the wheelchair and wheelchair controller had already been released in to the public for …show more content…
Chornyak & Assocs. v. Nudler, 2008-Ohio-668, (Ohio Ct. App.2008), the court found that the Word documents in question contained recommendations to clients that were routinely know and utilized throughout the financial planning industry. Id. at 22. The Excel templates consisted of a tax projection template based on IRS formulas and retirement income templates which contained formulas routinely used by financial planners. Id. The court held that since the documents and templates were readily known to the industry and given to many clients for then to disseminate at their will, the documents and templates did not meet the criteria set forth in the second element of the OUTSA.
LH meets the second element of the OUTSA, “Is not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann § 1333.61(D) (LexisNexis 20xx). The Mack court explained this element when they found that the computer program was not readily ascertainable because the program was not available for purchase over the internet or to the public. 2006-Ohio-2748 at 19. The program could only be attained by request from the dealerships to Mack trucks. Id. Then the request would go through a vender check by Mack to make sure the dealer was authorized to have the program. Id. The program was then sent directly to the dealer that requested a copy. Id.
Defendant will try to analogies the Eight District Court of Appeals, where they held that a wheelchair and wheelchair controller were not trade secrets. Jacono v. Invacare Corp. 2006-Ohio-1596 (Ohio Ct, App. 2006). The court held that since the wheelchair and wheelchair controller had already been released in to the public for …show more content…
Chornyak & Assocs. v. Nudler, 2008-Ohio-668, (Ohio Ct. App.2008), the court found that the Word documents in question contained recommendations to clients that were routinely know and utilized throughout the financial planning industry. Id. at 22. The Excel templates consisted of a tax projection template based on IRS formulas and retirement income templates which contained formulas routinely used by financial planners. Id. The court held that since the documents and templates were readily known to the industry and given to many clients for then to disseminate at their will, the documents and templates did not meet the criteria set forth in the second element of the OUTSA.