dismissed and this should they should be remanded to a very briefly with respect to the factual facts co pilot is a off the shelf type of computer software owned by a company in seattle called sierra that allows you to pretend to fly an airplane with amazing visual graphics the plaintiff learned that profile it was going to be discontinued it would be available if you purchased developed a business plan and was looking for partners fund that business plan containing a summary of the type of advantages or features or descriptions that might be available in certain circumstances and inquired whether the defendant was interested in pursuing this business opportunity to defendant was and invited the plaintiff to meet later that month january eighteenth in orlando at that time the plaintiff presented a form of agreement non disclosure non competing the defendant stated that signs are formed they did with  is considerable evidence in the record that the plaintiff would not have continued with that meeting in orlando but for the signing  to all information without limitation very broad including information regarding profile it plus other digital based but we have the idea of how to take this software and do stuff with  what happened that he was different than everybody else already knew but there were a couple of things not disclosed that are the most serious components of our p r and the difference between what was disclosed  different and confidential that wasn't discussed in all the business plans of the sun up to twenty three other companies two things in particular number one integration of the graphical elements of pro pilot into the defendant's product to improve the functionality and feature of the defendant's product primarily gak too bad stands for general aviation training you will not see any reference in that first january sixth disclosure in which there is a discussion or any reference to the integration use of the pro pilot graphical elements in gap two or any other project or the defendant simply not discussed but we have evidence in the records that it was specifically after that first story land a meeting later that month because there's an agenda item in the record talking about integration issues of the hardware on the software secondly second thing no discussed prior or not disclosed prior to the first orlando meeting is the use of the pro pilot engine that drives that software to benefit  proprietary or confidential is not correct now that's why because there is evidence in the record of the several things first of the of all the items discussed and then the subsequent enhancement of those in gent items by the following document later that month you can compare what was discussed before the orlando meeting and after i met him during the meeting and these particular items integration of the graphics and the use of the engine were not previously disclosed but that's in the record and we did present that to the court also stated in the opinion that there is nothing in the agreement signed at the first orlando meeting and then the subsequent agreement a few weeks later that provides that the defendant cannot compete with this information again that's fair for example that first contract disclosed and that is error because the documents both of these agreements the january and february agreement both provide that information shall not be disclosed and shall not be used  a common business arrangement we are not saying that we are in for a pilot we are saying we are on the ideas of how to use pro pilot to develop a business enhancing certain existing  software and hardware items of the defendant the defendant spent three months investigating those ideas its engineers concluded they were good ideas and then ultimately we contend the defend nt went around us hired our president to implement these various ideas and spend four hundred thousand dollars to buy pro pilot to do the very thing we told him about and there's plenty of reference in the record that the defendant not only did not know about pro pilot corps we told them about it but had no idea how to solve they could have gone out to any computer store and seen proclaimed it on the shelf themselves we have no idea why this defendant in the general aviation training business in the business says developing software to create these graphical images jack traynor why it did not know about how pilot no idea for that matter whether they knew about it or not because you're this is how you can improve your product if you take this tension and use it this way if you take these graphical images and use them this way they did not know about that until we told them and the president of the defendant that's first orlando meeting was so intrigued by this he wanted to continue to receive information from us first the context of a more detailed business plan second sending our people to pennsylvania to meet sentient ears and to thoroughly investigate the possibility of this so the defend itself view these ideas as being significant feed on the existence of this profile of software but rather how do we take these features and help the defendant improve its business and solve a solution it has been looking for for the that's not correct we did not appeal the trade secret component of the decision the trade secret claim was our third claim of relief as i recall we appealed the first second and seventh claim  respect to the type of information that was not disclosed prior to the first atlanta meetings but was disclosed at the first round of meeting and it subsequently that is in play now there are a bunch of other things that and selling components of pro pilot or licensing them to other software developers that's not what we're talking about right now what we're talking about specifically is what was not included in the january six submission to the twenty three people including the defendants president but what was discussed for the first time only and then subsequently later in january and that is the integration of the graphical elements into the graph to software on the other software and then also the use of the engine those are the two things that still survive and that not a trade secret plan it is something else because it's not a trade secret that the court is dealing with in that case and that case you have a big machine shop people coming in going employees there people from the community coming in and looking at the development of this product offering suggestions those suggestions being incorporated into the product that's not a trade secret secret deals with statutory trade secrets and if you have a statutory trade secret something happens including preemption but they came in case deals rather with the relationship between the parties and if there is that special relationship developed over time to give rights to rise to an implied covenant of confidentiality and then competition in the court will address that not because of the existence of the trade secret or something else but case it is a case dealing with the existence of an equity court's creation of an implied covenant of non competition and disclosure specifically because of that special relationship that exists between the parties in their business of non competition and and non disclosure when that special relationship gives rise to this business in reality the issue that is specifically addressed in the cayman case and that's what they came in cases getting could have a circumstance where are these contract that they don't have the existence of that business morality that came in was getting out for you or you cannot have a contract case but have the business morality components of payment so there may be some overlap in certain circumstances and we think there is here and we don't think that they're mutually exclusive  nonetheless entitle to some contractual or common law protection dark contention that emotions claims in this regard fail and that the trial court was correct in deciding this case on summary judgment one of the challenges in this case has been to determine precisely what the information in motion is claiming was confidential and during the trial proceedings discovery w and they were interrupted dory submitted and ultimately after all the dust settled there were thirteen separate pieces of information which in motion claimed at trial were trade secrets or were confidential and predictable the trial judge found based upon uncontested and very detailed evidence presented by my client in the summer a judgment proceeding that items one through eight and parts of items nine eleven and twelve have been transmitted to numerous companies involved in the flight simulation and entertainment industries prior to the meeting in orlando without any effort to protect confidentiality the court further made a finding which again is not being contested on appeal that i remember to do and i do so for through thirteen i've never been used in any manner so even if some of those were new things that were not disclosed in the initial unsolicited letter it really didn't matter because they had never been connection with sierra were trying to steer is a product and interest people in possibly purchasing it so they could get involved in further development of that product that idea of acquiring profile it clearly cannot form the basis of any kind of claim that confidential information was misused because it wasn't confidential i don't remember three is what counsel seems to be placing great reliance on today although i would submit that in the briefs you really don't read a lot about what was said today in terms of identifying the confidential information item three involve the idea of using parts of the profile it asked the coder of the software in existing could be used to either great new products or to improve products that other companies already had you know if you look at the first speech which is that one seventy one page thirty talks about utilizing the core technology of the profiling into other products basically and if you go on and on and read through here they talk about breaking up the software breaking up the code breaking up  components a profiler and using that software using those codes to make new products or improve existing products and you know you can you can go through here and there are several statements which talk about using the code improving products creating new products etc now it's true there was no mention of jack two which is my client's product perhaps they didn't know the name of that product but the whole thrust of this was the idea that there was something new discussed at the orlando meeting is something that we just don't agree with and frankly there's no evidence in this case that anything used at that was the threat the centerpiece of all the discussions that occurred afterwards the bottom line really here is therefore that in motion is complaining that the idea of buying profile it and using it to improve that all three of those legal theories are without foundation first and motion claims that the visitor's agreement signed on january eighteenth was breached and this is untrue for several reasons first visitors agreement is an integrated contract and applied only to what was disclosed during the actual visit to the premises on that particular day second  the agreement covered information that was proprietary or confidential to and motion and that was identified as being either proprietary or confidential so basically we have and do well but your they've never really demonstrated by way of admitting anything but the fact that my client found out about copilot and then decided to purchase it based upon the notion that it might be useful to them and improving their own products and that was all laid out in the initial letter which was sent out unsolicited basis without any designati a very broad brush meeting in which they just talked about general principles with regards to how you could take this product which in motion didn't own and utilize it in your own existing software to make things better with your products and that was no different than the central thrust of the of the initial plan and again i would encourage the court if there's any doubt as to the meaning of that original plan to go through it and and see exactly what the terms were because there were numerous statements as i stated earlier about utilizing the segments or components of the profile and improving existing products and making new products so basically nothing disclosed at the orland meeting with its proprietary nothing was confidential and there was no material fact as to or no genuine material fact yes to any designation because there was no designation ugh and motion argues something more was required to put us the notice that they were claiming confidentiality or a proprietary interest in this product the second legal theory upon which they were like is this idea that  second i get the second agreement was entered into for one reason to protect the owner of the product from any misuse of the code that we were actually being given access to and it was signed for that reason and there was no evidence that there was any misuse of the code we looked at it termed that maybe we could use it and didn't disclose it the only time we've ever used it or or utilized in any matter is after we purchased it if you look at the again you're either a comes down to the same issue as regarding the visitors agreement confidential means something were confidential generally means that something is private or that you've taken some steps to ensure that it remains private or secret in this case again they have not shown that we utilized any confidential information the only thing they've shown is that we acquired pro pilots found out about pro pilot and thought about decided approximately forty three years ago at that time the claim was if you look at the i think the second paragraph of cayman says it is asserted that these improvements were trade secrets communicated to defendant who now in the course of a confidential relationship giving rise to a duty not to disclose or appropriate such secrets and the so was a trade secrets and the courts in came in and basically looked at all the elements that would normally go into a trade secret case such as novelty secrecy and the relationship of the parties and determined that the relationship of the parties with regards to a confidential relationship was somehow to be given perhaps a little bit more weight than the novelty or secrecy issues that were present in that case the court in came in si emphasis to one element of a typical trade secrets case over another element in other words the relationship of confidentiality maybe outweighing novelty or secrecy i was precisely the reason i think that the uniform act was passed in oregon because there were conflicting cases from various jurisdictions conflicting cases within oregon as to all the factors that would go into these particular types of cases the uniform  which deal with a level of secrecy which deal with the types of relationships that must be shown to exist in order to make out a trade secrets claims and in our brief i point out the provisions of the current law which deal with all of the same issues that the cayman court discussed back forty three years ago and we contend that judge brown was completely correct in her assertion that keenan has been statutory rights in these type of situations the one case that the trial judge dealt with was a nice circuit case which cited came in shortly after the passage of the uniform act but on some different point regarding  e relief so no court really has cited came in for the proposition as any motion claims that it creates a just common law torch of breach of confidential relationship slash unfair competition which is i believe al played at five denominate the claim in the complaint so we don't believe that that is a very serious legal issue in light of the fact that came in appears to be a dead letter at least