Evening journal., 1917-05-23
DUPONT CO. Wins
POINT IN trade
Secrets Case

Continued From First Page0
trst court for the company, which
sought to enjoin Masland from MAX
ing use OF his confidential knowledge
Of its secret processes. The court OF
appeals reversed the lower court.
In all its phases the case was full
Of interesting discussions as to the
rights OF parties to the action TO re-
veal business secrets in the form of
evidence before The court, and many
of the hearings were in secret to pre-
vent such revelation.
Tho case was finally taken TO the
highest tribunal which now decides
that the main point at issue is the
company's right to be protected
against breach OF confidence by its
employees The decision is unusually
interesting to manufacturing indus
tries as it involves every business
structure which is erected on the
foundation OF secret processes and
trade secrets, which could be thrown
down by the revelation OF these Sc.
crets through any one who might
have learned them while in the en-.
ploy Of the rightful owners.
After stating the facts in the case.
the opinion delivered by Associate
Justice Holmes continued:
THE case has been considered as
presenting conflict between a right
OF property and right to make
iull defense and 1t is said that II the
disclosure Is forbidden 10 one who
denies that there is trade secret
the merits Of his defense are
ad1udged against HIN before he
has chance to be heard or 10
prove his case. We approach the
question somewhat differently. The
word property as applied TO trade
marks and trade secrets is an un-
analysed expression of certain sec
ondary consequences Of the primary
fact that the law makes some rudi-
mentary requirements OF good faith
Whether the plaintiffs have any valu-
able secrets or not the defendant
knows tho facts whatever they are.
through a special confidence that he
accepted. The property may be de-
MED. but the confidence cannot he.
Therefore. the starting point for the
present matter is not property or due
process Of law. but that the defend
ant stood I'm confidential relations
with the plaintiffs. or one of them
These have given place to hostility,
and the first thing to be made sure
of is that the defendant shall not |
fradulently abuse the trust reposed !
in him. II is the usual incident Of /
confidential relations If there is
any disadvantage i'm the fact that nc I,
knew the plaintiffs secrets he must /
take the burden with the good
THE injunction asked by the plain |
tits forbade only disclosure of processes
claimed by them, including the disclos-
IRE TO experts or witnesses produced
during the taking Of proofs-but except
ing the defendants counsel. Some
broader and ambiguous words that crept
into the decree. seemingly by mistake,
may be taken as stricken out and left
on one side This injunction would not
prevent the defendant from directing
Qucstions that should bring ont what
cver'publc facts were nearest to the al
legged secrets. Indeed IL is hard 10 see
why IL does not leave the plaintiffs
rights somewhat illusory. No very
clear ground has as vet been shown for
going further. But the Judge who tries
tho case will know the secrets. and If in
his opinion and discretion IL should be-
come advisable and necessary TO take in
others. nothing will prevent his doing so.
Il will he understood that if in the
opinion Of the trial judge IL is or should
become necessary to reveal the secrets of
others II will rest in The Judges disrrc-
ton TO determine whether 10 whom and
under what precautions the revelations
should be made
decree reversed and case rcmanded
for further proceedings in conformity
with this opinion