under the defend trade secrets act or rico because the defendants st pain and then existing wished quaintest trade secrets by publishing them prior to may th scene which is when the your client entered into three agreement none of and in none of those and it's i'm i'm going by the complaint which we have to take is true enough to that agreement did he permit google or any other defendant publish those trade secrets without compensation to him he has never received compensation for those trade secrets which google incrementally valued being worth two hundred and twenty honor there was a temporary license granted for the purpose of in essence of valuation of the potential of trade secret that was not in some on limited permission for years  with we just simply respectfully disagree with the district court that retroactivity retroactivity was the we were asserting claims that arose are two thousand and sixteen the basis for our recovery is what happened after  the retroactivity analysis by the district court causes a great number of problems these are very broad statutes and it is it would be perverse to have a situation where in essence a violation of one subsection of the d c s a plan for all another preexisting violation that includes as well as reach the duty to maintain secrecy any misrepresentation that involved basically obtaining the information by any wrong for me and there's some p off on that again to be a good amount of you know be able to judge within the time lines that were soon in this district i think it would be a long time were happy for the court to dispose of the case now behavior before the statute is an active duty badly behaving party cannot point out that a leg or an active statute is not retroactive let's be clear bruegel has never argued that under trade secret   because in that circumstance the information has not yet become generally know which is how the statute defines trade secrets but by contrast you cannot was appropriate a is an active if you still have a valid trade secret as a the day the statute is an active and of course you do have a claim so if a group of wrong doers disclose a trade secret among themselves it's still a cause the nation to become generally known and lose trade secrets status to the d t s saying includes liability for a situation where someone won't fully acquires or trade secrets and then  discloses that quote unquote trade secrets to another person in other words according to the statute a group of bad actors can disclose a trade secret of one of them somehow covertly without the trade secret owner losing his life against the statute allows a court to issue an injunction to take steps to protect equal quote trade secrets and so if your trades falls into the hands of a competitor improper disclosure you still have pretty secret rights and you can you didn't have to get it back which is a very common form of injunction trade secret so we can tell from the text of the statute the judge freeman and judge  and i teach my law students in class judge you can pass and trade secret in a group of wrong doers i can disclose it to one another but the over still has rights judge chin is correct in the other judges are correct and when you have a surreptitious and so it's a bit it's a bit of a straw man they they go through the paces and they like the hog ok but it's important to realise of agoa was one of the very st very  cases addressed any of these issues and when you go to the altar g k s which is judge chin case that judge wallace was referring to it it notes that  and in essence what this court's going to have to deal with is a small pocket of this court case there is little circuit court guidance on that but i should point out that you're not only dealing with  this representation