duty to protect that secret throughout this litigation or you can reveal that that trade secret here in the courtroom i don't believe that the specifics of the source code are going to be discussed today i just want to make that motion so that we can  consider whether gaff or gap c is a combination trade secret and i want to just for the purposes of this argument please keep two facts in mind here the development of gap  computers in his long practice in one nine hundred ninety three that's thirteen years prior to hiring mr ahmed on during that time he worked to develop his computer software and he had other programmers working  secret the work combination was not used in the trial courts would think so we submit that that was not even considered that the trial court may have just been looking at some of the other components of the combination trade secret but virginia has also adopted the uniform trade secret and this case is exactly on point exactly what happened and it has to do with source code in that case the plaintiff identified source code as a combination trade secret and then produced it in its entirety which is exactly what mr tracy did here in that case the trial court had difficulty in determining whether the plaintiff could benefit trade secrets with specificity and in that case the plaintiff was asked to quote clearly differentiate between the material which is public knowledge from the material which is allegedly a plaintiff's trade secret and that the trial court did hear t his combination trade secret to determine what pieces of it were in the public domain the fourth circuit case birth date and also summary judgment was entered in that case on the issue of whether a trade secret exists and it was entered a trade secret the fourth circuit also determined that software can be a protectable combination trade secret and that the production of an entire piece of software and the source code is an acceptable method for identif for the expert opinion does not fly because what he did not do what he didn't look at i understand what the trial court asked  friends and that's exactly what he did so i don't believe that you know what he didn't do you know it's really up to a litigant to determine what and the court to determine what the expert job is they could have changed back and the follow up to that is that they don't have to be the same to be a trade secret violation because  and it has economic value because he sold it and joseph doyle and other bankruptcy attorneys purchased that so i don't believe that it cannot be separate because you are all talking about we're talking about water and it started in that was a trademark case that had nothing to do with this case they were no allegations of trade secret misappropriation they executed a release to settle that case that release we contend was a specific release to issue because you know there's a big gap between not making any mention of what was dismissed and then incorporating the entirety of all of those claims that were dismissed said seven months to we bring this motion to my attention is on time when you've played over it and we've gone through all discovery in this case based on the claims as you've listened to them in this many complaint and i will say that the circuit court's ruling with reason for why the judgment should be affirmed but it has nothing to do with whether or not the claim was waived in its entire world whether it was a way isn't there well there's no continuing misappropriation and there  that the particular trade secret that mr jenner a seeing a surge in this case gas he was not a trade secret moreover there was no evidence presented at the summary judgment stage to show any misappropriation of well there was no other evidence presented on that point we didn't receive any documents to support that there was no other evidence presented other than that single statement now with respect to time to treat this you've heard a lot about how  think it would be fair to say that if i were to buy a windows program for my future the cost of me replacing there if i were to hire people would be astronomical based upon the price they have to pay a software sure to buy the program so one is in fact let's take the bull by the worse the product that in the late one nine hundred ninety s anyone purchased and used to create a database management application it was designed to be used in any type of business in the surgery see used it exactly as it was intended to be used and we're  but he couldn't establish what gary c did was any different than some other database management software program that he could have purchased on the market there was no evidence to that effect on where only all the evidence summary judgment it can be a trade secret but you have to show that the combination as you put it together is unique and to force you to competitive advantage and that's what there was no evidence of in the circuit court there is no evidence that  software program allows a business run more efficiently that doesn't necessarily make it a trade secret he hasn't explained what gansey does that is different and that allows him to do something that he to make sure that they had a leg to stand on before filing suit and that makes sense because trade secret cases are often between competitors and involves complex discovery into their confidential business of the nation so it makes sense to trade secret plaintiffs should have to understand his product or is information in this case before he brings an action and it's clear from the evidence that was presented at the fire deep during the circuit court the mystery see more disaster did any of those things now the circuit court found th were entitled to discovery into what his counsel was telling him with respect to the merits of the suit at the outset of the case in this circuit court said we're not getting into all that that was not raised in the briefs on this motion and i'm confin know of no obligation in case law having to do a trade secret is that a plaintiffs hire an expert prior to filing suit i i don't understand why that seems to be the standard discovery of the fact that there is economic value to gap that relates to its secrecy those are that he couldn't buy this off the shelf he looked for it and he has continued to look for it for years and because you can't fire off the shelf he has to spend a lot of money and time developing that and the court never heard testimony as to how much time and and effort and money has gone into that additionally we know because  he knew how to to work with the law practice management system that was a multi state multichannel sticks and so that is evidence that there is economic value to the secrecy they hired him they hired is in the section five hearing we heard testimony from katrina said and then it was hearsay she said next to one of mr races competitors on the plane who had said he had been to legal helpers d and beyond that there was no copying of gassy intel each one after the october thirteenth two thousand and three date i would agree with you that whether we're looking at this program before i took her th two thousand three it's not a trade secret or whether we're looking at it after that date it's still not a trade secret but we also believe that we presented sufficient evidence to show that nothing here was this appropriated if in fact a trade secret exists which it does not