this is a court this morning your honor is my name is were not trade secrets the trade secret is defined in the act as sufficiently secret and that the company took affirmative measures to prevent others from acquiring this information in stand strong and several other cases they s i'm sure that you are familiar with if you look at the writer means big process they did have a protectable interest to mean they are active in system was not known at large and in fact need protect sites that they used he system where each employee who would have access to it they had to have a three thousand dollar u s b drive in order to get into a level fifty people in that system including the secretary except that there's a few hundred people in the company and you have obvious bills all over and you're still protected and you put it and they also put it in there in their hand but that this is protected all information has been processed if we took the bed system evolved and said that anybody any bid systems are all fine and everybody can can compete that way and we would all have to just we might as well have been the look at with the fact if you look at it closely and we do set it forth actually in our reply brief that in fact he didn't testify that bad he testified that you can certainly back out the labor rates and things like back but in fact me to get something different a material things like that because the people that they work with that are plugged in there they get different rates on things they don't get the same rate as the guy down the street so you would never be able to figure out what the profit wasn't not just the prophet i get that sense from sas you know our talking thousand and ten westlife three one five five ninety one and in that case they have a database system and the defendants argued that the per the propriety database pattern was nothing more than general industry practice are trade secrets and so it it becomes that it's not the database you can buy anywhere but it's the actual stuff that gets put into the program and the actual stuff that's shot out at the end when you actually have a bit on a certain project before mr wix last that he tried to e mail the files home to his home computer he couldn't do it then suddenly that afternoon somebody came into his exact computer is the very thing down into is the drive and he took that information misappropriation can just be according to the libor case just improper acquisition even if he doesn't use it you still have it you still have misappropriation i was you can show damages and at this point we have these three show that the mr misappropriation occurred and even if we if you didn't believe that he did take it in this manner he certainly use the information he did on the same three jobs it was he was the guy that did it made he's the guy th authorized years which leads to leads to the last issue which is at trial there was a pretrial order in which the exhibits were to be submitted before they had and then we each had fourteen days to  contention that that's improper use because these were not going to be and happiness and the damages that were allowed were the bet that that in fact they were trying to shout that they didn't use appropriate these that they're not trade secrets because you're it's changed and so we believe that they did weigh in on the judge ten in a bench case for a directive finding at the end of the plaintiff's case that the trial court's findings have to be given great deference i think what and i believe what the apple lacked is done here is regurgitate court's finding was against a man of faith manifest weight of evidence perhaps by the court would be coming up with a new conclusion and re weighing the evidence but that's not the case wilkes but it is it is i think it's relevant because it it gives perspective to the to the larger case here john wilkes was just an employee not a director not an owner so he didn't have a higher duty of care when john left media he in fact did rebid three jobs that are at the center of meats case but those were really bits and that's what counsel didn't mention and what the tra it didn't address was that these jabs were at three of the same customers but john is and he left me he can go some of seek business from those customers which he did one of the jobs was a job that was given to him put out a bit two or the other jobs were actually read bits of jack the giant did before he left me so there rebid it's a new scope on the job one of them in fact big on the third job but they didn't come in with the number what the number was on the third chapter the the one job that they did come in with a number was actually less than john wicks number so you know and i think you know and i'm sure after he leaves me that he bid previously in he should he should have no connection with these customers on any of these jobs first of all the job scopes had changed and two of the japs so it's a different bit so even if john remembered it and you know what he did on the original job for me that's not the new that's not the new new job and i think that was pretty clear from the evidence that the trial court heard you know when ruling left me he tried to download his entire computer family pictures there of everything that was in his computer and as the trial court said when she ruled that if if this was something that was so import and to just the six secret information that he was trying to steal from me he would have done it i think she said sir repetitiously in other words he would have done this quietly taken at home over weekends and done it where it couldn't be you know it was very obvious the way that it was yeah me because he had practiced in this field is not a german electrician for many years before coming to me so for example when he laughed at me for how long i believe seven years or so all this work that it done with me then seven years  also downloaded everything that was on the computer and it included work it included bits emails just his entire computer and your position is that this was not  clear in the record and i think there's a great deal more in the record that the court didn't even touch on that could have gone to exactly these issues that would come out in our favor i mean i think this is beyond you know i just th trade secrets well if they are trade secrets but the problem is how do you take someone that's been a journeyman electrician for many years in that area when he came to need and say well you know i mean the and i don't mean this flippantly but what do we do give him a l abiding me when he walks out the door me than anything that you know that there is in all the case law on these issues there is that the you know you can take certain my general skills and knowledge that you've learned on your job with you and i think the trail evidence was very clear on that to he you know when he went to these new jobs that were in it might have the same title you know this hospital victory vest or it was a different scope of a job but he said even if he could have remembered what the earlier bid was twenty one that he submitted for me he said he would use it he would redoing just because there's air constantly and he wanted to make sure each time out but i don't believe there's been any evidence submitted by meade in any way shape or form that's other than just i know me ok thank you  i don't think that it was proof that it was a really bad but it was that at this point i believe it was the same bed and that's what we did it and that's what we argued and that's what i feel we proved in the case this whole rebid issue wasn't anything that was after proven because defense never the case on and instead we talked about the fact that that and that these were identical beds and that there wasn't any change in scope and so it's both in that we think that needs to be protected but even if it cost so i'm going to scratch that i'm going to be at i have that competitive advantage and then they have the advantage that has to be protected that's why the bids are done the way they are so that if we all knew what each other's best well why don't we just go in and say i stampede to a warehouse in vs may to seven to eleven three d five eighty states even if the trade secret was just in his mind you still can't use it so you still can't use to use their kind of trade secrets but more importantly is doesn't matter that he didn't get it when he actually generated the bed you know i would say that that first of all everybody was aware that there was a him but he was there for seven years he knew that he knew of the end but we didn't have the fin aware that they were trade secrets and so even if they're in a smile even if we agree that if we if we go and we say that he didn't download or that he didn't take them with them and put them in your it's still if it's a trade secret it's misappropriation g