Opinion ID: 1784171
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: spreadsheet software data program

Text: PSI contends that its spreadsheet software data program is a trade secret as defined in the Trade Secrets Act. That Act defines a trade secret to mean information that: (a) Is used or intended for use in a trade or business; (b) Is included or embodied in a formula, pattern, compilation, computer software, drawing, device, method, technique, or process; (c) Is not publicly known and is not generally known in the trade or business of the person asserting that it is a trade secret; (d) Cannot be readily ascertained or derived from publicly available information; (e) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy; and (f) Has significant economic value. See Ala.Code 1975, § 8-27-2(1). The burden is on the one asserting the trade secret, here PSI, to show that it is included or embodied in the categories listed in § 8-27-2(1). Towry and Adams concede that the program is included in the first two categories; clearly the plaintiff uses the information contained in the spreadsheet in its business, and the information is embodied in a spreadsheet software data program. They argue, however, that none of the last four categories applies; thus, they argue, the information cannot be afforded the protection of a trade secret. The third requirement for trade secret protection is that the information [i]s not publicly known and is not generally known in the trade or business of the person asserting that it is a trade secret. An examination of PSI's spreadsheet software data program reveals that the information the plaintiff seeks to protect is readily ascertainable or derivable from information that is publicly available. According to trial testimony, the spreadsheet began as an off-the-shelf computer program available to anybody who wants to go down to the software store and buy it. The program produces a screen of rows and columns and contains various command keystrokes to allow the user to modify the spreadsheet to insert blocks of information. The program also has the capability to perform mathematical calculations. There is no evidence in the record, and apparently no claim, that PSI made any changes to the technical aspects of the program; therefore, there is no trade secret protection in the program itself. [1] As stated in the comments to § 8-27-2, the trade secret is not the object, process, etc., in which a trade secret is embodied, but is specific information. All of the information compiled and embodied in PSI's spreadsheet data program is available to the public. The spreadsheet consists of a cover sheet, a key to the legends, a map and a multipage graph. The map is a reprint of an Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA) map that shows the counties of Alabama and the location of the regional planning and development commissions. PSI admits that the map is a state document with general dissemination. The succeeding pages are in graph form. The first two columns contain the names of the cities and counties of Alabama. The third column, headed REG.PLNCOM shows the regional planning commission under whose jurisdiction each city and each county operates. The next columns, 1980 populations, percent minority population, and percent LMI [low and moderate income], all contain information taken from the 1980 census. The next two columns include a community need factor and a DISCTYSTA (distress county status), both figures were obtained from ADECA, are periodically published by ADECA, and are available to anyone who requests the information. The next column shows the Fiscal Year 1989 Waste Water Treatment System Priority as established by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. This information is also generally available to the public. The final columns contain a complete history of grant applications submitted by local governments. According to PSI, this information is obtained from ADECA and is information that one could obtain if they knew what they were asking for. Closely aligned with the requirements of (c), above, is the requirement of § 8-27-2(1)(d), that the information cannot be readily ascertained or derived from publicly available information. What constitutes a trade secret is a question of fact for the trial court. Drill Parts & Service Co. v. Joy Mfg. Co., 439 So.2d 43 (Ala. 1983). In this case, the trial court found that the software data program was not a trade secret, based upon the fact that the information and the spreadsheet software were both readily available to the public. In cases where the evidence is presented ore tenus to the court and without a jury, the court's findings of fact are presumed to be correct and will not be set aside except for plain and palpable abuse of discretion. Chism v. Hicks, 423 So.2d 143 (Ala.1982); Mac Pon Co. v. Vinsant Painting & Decorating Co., 423 So.2d 216 (Ala.1982). As stated in the comments to § 8-27-2, [p]aragraph (d) is intended to disallow from trade secret protection information that is readily available and does not require substantial research investment to obtain. All of the information contained in the spreadsheet is readily available public information. While PSI claims that the spreadsheet took several years to develop, it appears that the development process would consist mainly of determining what information to obtain. We have examined the record, and, considering our scope of review, we conclude that PSI has failed to show sufficient evidence that the trial court abused its discretion in not finding that the process of requesting that information and then plugging it into the computer grid would require a substantial research investment. Saunders v. Florence Enameling Co., 540 So.2d 651 (Ala.1988), dealt with a claim that a process of coating aluminum pipe was a trade secret. That case involved a process, rather than data, but the process was one that provided a superior product at a reduced cost. In that circumstance, it was the process itself that was the secret. In the present case, however, there was nothing secret about the process of getting the information. Consequently, PSI's claim that the display of publicly known information should be protected by the Trade Secrets Act has no merit. The trial court correctly found that the information was readily ascertainable or was derivable from publicly available sources and thus did not fall within the protected categories under the statute. Consequently, the trial court's ruling that the spreadsheet was not a trade secret is affirmed.