because if you have argued that they would have to be selling the empire's products you know  upright then they didn't state of violations but if they were in fact selling empire's products which probably maybe it could have been the case in the universe of discourse but not in this world you know because that's not the action because they're crap and i would i think with some i had stated that they were selling empires products i suppose from a technical point of view it would have been sufficient to sustain a course of action albeit a cause of action that you would have no hope of ever proving or for which you could claim any actual certainly not what i under a particular very skewed reading of the contract that might be excel but i didn't believe that the trial court was delving into the contract and making  interpretation as to the actual definition if she doesn't do it in a ruling as to what empires products in the contract means there's a law that if the definition of empires product which i think is beyond what we're after day it's a question of whether  i i think there's probably a philosophical division as to what the public policy ought to be with regard to non compete employment opportunities to employees with the classical the steamship made between the purchase of a business as opposed to the terminations of employment that somehow the public policy should be more conciliatory towards protecting of venditte from the competition of the van door as opposed to protecting off an employer rip off from the competition of an employee i don't want this to go on forever but it seems to me that after a last hour you can show that the employer that's an unanswered question now i've written on the case you know and i know that the supreme court is is that doesn't talk about legitimate business interests but on the other hand isn't that a isn't it possible that the legitimacy of the business interest aspect is and compassed in the term reasonable when you look to see if it's a reasonable do ration care reasonable geographic boundaries are how do you determine whether it's reasonable and isn't the legitimacy of the has never adopted this test and the only things that the supreme court has ever isolated in isolation looked at are temporal geographical on the patients to make sure the agreement is reasonable so to your point your honor there is some element of reasonableness that infiltrates no matter what i think what the decision is saying would you do not see a business interest that permeates into the trial recently in dallas with the right for private parties to contract to reach an agreement which is why there's so much focus on whether it's fair to both parties but in any event for this particular case everything you're asking requires a factual delving into the situation to understand what is the nature of the business what is the nature in this particular case of confidential information even if we were to accept a contention that the pricing formulae involved in the case this is made by defining confidential information is essentially all of the information provided concerning or in any way relating to pretty good judgment and that seems to be the argument that the union trial judge was relying on and because she found the company i suspect that language specifically on its face to be significant distinction from the judge's characterization a bit of a confidentiality i would i would say to you this if that language wasn't in there i must have a problem but that language significantly limits what is confidential and what's not i think it has to be something  information is all information of about her concerning the business of the company and its clients that derives actual or potential economic value from not being known to the company and its clients competitors so there are cases absolutely free cases where that one phrase you don't need it in is that anything we give you is confidential that's a problem i would be i would have i would be shrinking here right now i don't have this other qualifying language which says it is not driving economic value from a secrecy such as pricing by way to example when you imagine going down the street today your direct competitor i know and you're in the home and well you know i still would would question you i don't know if you have a right to suffer from insomnia that forces you to watch an information you know and unfortunately i can claim to have been subject to that experience and there are people who sell look volumes for quite a substantial price that deal with public information that is simply not known but it's not  information for example information about how by x you tell ott now that's have information that this person put together with his own genius giving economic value to the wife but it's not something that the employer fashioned or design  customers customer care packages and sales pap there is no one best case primarily because it's more of the practice which is reflected in numerous cases that it is perfectly appropriate for the illinois court to decide a will to sixteen motion to dismiss based solely upon the face of the complaint and the attachments to that complaint in fact that's exactly what they're supposed to do if they feel the state a cause of action when each competent plate is taken it's true that's absolutely right in fact in europe we have the benefit of the the allegations of the complaint and the agreements that empire claimed were being breached in one way or another and of course the contract attached to complaint is not a part of the complaint we don't know it was holds that it can trump the allegations of the complaint which  look at thirty seven paragraph thirty seven thirty four alleges that they did that creates liquids involving pricing parties customer lists information customer preferences installations leads on doing prospective customers in terms of the contract so for now look at thirty seven confidential as epp an economic impact on the company and that these former representatives are disclosing it to lou in new third part two points in response to first how specific fact leaving state i know that's correct or a number one you have to look at section twelve of the conference because the contract have to come in later with a second section twelve talks about the return of property and return of property is important here because you may not be able to retreat restrain just won't but you can still presume in the restricted employment clause that it may entail the use of confidential material using the the employer's oh and investiture of its own proprietary secrets to turn against the employer and six fifteen motion from its face as an example of the pleading but would that permit you all slow to turn down the restrictive employment clauses being on reasonable if in fact you are there is the possibility that these employees are going to use confidential information legitimately confidential in competing with their  interpret ing company's products and as being a characterization of the nature of the product rather than the characterization of the title but that's a whole other  secrets you could make an argument that the lawyer who drafted all of the one and the three secrets act definition on the one hundred because some of the language is remarkably that's really the point but what if the complaint itself is opposed to the contract which are arguably would include information that could could be read to include information we could never possibly absolutely confidential but the complaint prohibited from selling her book to anybody regardless of what you had any connection with them whatsoever regardless of whether empire ever had any connection to you what's your answer would be different the entire state of illinois it's not just the chicago area by the way it's either the territory or the state whichever is have never happened while i'm pleased associate with a former player here independent contractors and that's another point these are independent contractors this is a nonexclusive agreement as reflected in paragraph three paragraph three allows basically these independent contractors to perform services for other businesses so if the contract provides that they that they should not compete ott with any there's no allegation even as of today they've ever sold empires products is part of the ways of empire and while the question is what whether the word occupier with the a with the apostrophe should be given preeminence over the policy argument again where these kinds of arguments i just contracts are arguably looked down with much more careful scrutiny than ever because public policy is simple but then we have t which we have to statutory right yes but what's the traits right with respect to what companies and i think if you read their own if you read their confidentiality agreement and that you read the trade secrets act what you say here philadelphia lawyer drafted the only thing i would ask whether the court has any questions i would love to be that for the person that does that again in the eighteen years about not having even more say but there's a part of the question is this back to the trial court's exercise of discretion with respect t empire for the term lou not in the three or four in week that would have turned into a joke but you're right and to that point you know how so added a few words to his comments about and as a matter of law i find if you try to restrict competition that is otherwise i'm warranted for a day does it become reasonable simply because of the fine tuning so how do you  the various aspects that public policy or games these an employee who can employer in the luggage business how is an employee that i don't want you selling cars anywhere in the city for a week employer in one business context to restrict employment in another commercial context has absolutely  that he's immobilized for a period of time or doesn't have to approach check something more personal to the employer such as the use of the employer's special train relationship with the customer of his former employer the employer may have an interest in keeping that customer if he's if the if the employer if the employee is not a lawyer from being able to take away that cost but here you're dealing with the retail trade you probably don't see more than one  in the probation it doesn't say we want to keep you from using the training and we'll stop studies that are early salaries may have contributed to your training to confidence application through the use of confidential information then in fact it's of blankets restriction that will be violated whether we use confidential and she read that into thirty and she said i'm going to read this to say you got to wait for the other way around where i don't i don't see the way i think of thirty can stand on its own because if we reject