Opinion ID: 1140801
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The ATSA Claims

Text: The ATSA defines a trade secret as follows: A `trade secret' is 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. § 8-27-2(1), Ala.Code 1975. The ATSA provides for the recovery of actual damages suffered as a result of a misappropriation of a trade secret, as well as exemplary damages for a willful and malicious misappropriation (§ 8-27-4); it describes misappropriation as follows in § 8-27-3: Misappropriation. A person who discloses or uses the trade secret of another, without a privilege to do so, is liable to the other for misappropriation of the trade secret if: (1) That person discovered the trade secret by improper means; (2) That person's disclosure or use constitutes a breach of confidence reposed in that person by the other; (3) That person learned the trade secret from a third person, and knew or should have known that (I) the information was a trade secret and (ii) that the trade secret had been appropriated under circumstances which violate the provisions of (1) or (2), above; or (4) That person learned the information and knew or should have known that it was a trade secret and that its disclosure was made to that person by mistake. Brooks and Systrends argue that the information Group 8760 says constituted a trade secret does not qualify as a trade secret under § 8-27-2 and, moreover, that, even if the information did constitute a trade secret, Group 8760 failed to prove by substantial evidence that they misappropriated that information. Richard Hamilton, a software expert who has been a voting member of GISB for a number of years and who authored many of the documents constituting the GISB standards and the revisions of those standards, testified that the whole purpose of GISB was to create and publish open standards for ready access and use by all possible participants in electronic commerce within the natural-gas industry. He stated that he had been retained by Systrends to examine the source code for InsideAgent, and TransactionBridge and XMLBridge [Systrends' forerunner to TransactionBridge] [and] to determine the likeness, duplication, copy, or imitation of the source code between those two products. He was to determine the similarity of function between InsideAgent and TransactionBridge. Hamilton testified that the sequencing of the codes in InsideAgent and TransactionBridge were radically different because the programming languages were different and he found no likeness in the two programs either from a lexical standpoint (scanning for similarity of phrases and words) or from a coding standpoint. According to Hamilton, the programs were also radically different from a computer-logic standpoint. Hamilton found no evidence in TransactionBridge of any use of any of the programs developed by Group 8760 during the evolution of GISBAgent. Despite an exhaustive examination of the two products, he found no similarities between them other than some similarities that were necessitated by the GISB standards, there being no similarities outside of those requirements. It was his opinion that all similarities of function between InsideAgent and TransactionBridge are by necessarily [sic] in meeting the strict industry requirements and cannot be avoided. He explained that although the GISB standards do not specify the coding techniques of a GISB solution because GISB did not want to dictate what languages or what algorithms those programs used to comply with the standards, the standards would serve to limit the algorithms or solutions that could be used for compliance. The GISB standards do govern the essential functionality of a GISB solution. Hamilton found that TransactionBridge represents a unique way of implementing the GISB standard, doing so in a manner that Hamilton had never before seen. Nonetheless, the GISB solutions incorporated in TransactionBridge were kind of what I would expect from a GISB compliant program. Hamilton's testimony on these points was undisputed, and Group 8760's only rejoinder in its brief is that Hamilton simply compared the similarities and differences of the InsideAgent and TransactionBridge software to conclude that there is no copying of Group 8760's source code in TransactionBridge, whereas 8760 was not required to produce evidence that Systrends and Brooks copied InsideAgent in order to prove a violation of the ATSA. (Group 8760's brief, p. 56.) Group 8760 undertook to identify the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets through the testimony of Buccigross and Williams. Buccigross estimated that it had taken approximately two years and $2 million to develop InsideAgent. Concerning the nature of the associated trade secret, he testified: It's  if it was a building or an automobile, we'd be talking about blueprints, but it's almost a mental blueprint. It's a diagram of how things work. It's a process, it's procedures, it's how you handle the data, and these are not obvious things. There may be a hundred different ways to do something, but only one of them works, but you don't know which one works, until you try all 100. Then you get to 100 and 101, or a 1000, and all of a sudden you say, here's what works. Now, we know how to develop and how to make this product. Then when you get behind that first door, there's a whole other series of doors that you have to work at and maybe only 1 of those 100 will work. So it's  as I said, I took for the initial version, two years, if you will, to walk through all those doors and to get in the maze behind the door and figure out what was the right direction. Stops and starts. That ability to know which door to pick, which path to go down, which is the right lever to pull, how the product interacts, how the things work, that's what I believe the trade secret is, the intellectual property of 8760 is. It's not the code. Anybody can write a code. It's making it do what you want it to do and then making it a product that you can sell, that people can buy, that you know will work. Williams likewise talked in general terms in attempting to describe the trade secret allegedly misappropriated. He testified that it took approximately a year and a half and somewhere between $1 million and $2 million to create GISBAgent, the forerunner to InsideAgent. (R. 1367.) He described the trade secrets that emerged from creating that program as: [I]t's the things that you learn, every day, every hour, about how do you do the things[,] how do you do the things that you do, to create the products that you've got, that you take to market. It's the things that you are successful with, and it's the things you know are not successful, so that you don't waste time doing thing[s] that you know  you know your competitors are going to have to make mistakes, rather than know exactly what to do to begin with. If you walk out the door with a trade secret, you can do something in a tenth of the time that you have to spend if you are doing for the first time, within your own company. Counsel for Brooks pressed Williams during cross-examination to be more specific in his identification and description of the trade secret he alleged Brooks had misappropriated: Q. [W]hat I need to know is exactly what it is you're claiming Dick Brooks stole from you, okay? . . . A. Dick Brooks, took from 8760 the knowledge about our processes. . . . . Q. What trade secrets do you say Mr. Brooks stole? A. . . . . Dick knew every one of our company's systems. We programmed on many different types of systems, deck systems, Hewlett Packard systems, IBM systems[,] Microsoft systems, the ability to write code that operates on a lot of systems, and then can be installed quickly as a stand alone product, is a trade secret. Q. Ability to write code, and which systems did he steal that ability in reference to? A. I think what we end up with is that Dick knew the blueprint that we ended up with after writing an application that would run on unique systems. Q. Which application? A. InsideAgent. Q. So, the ability to write code. So is the ability to any code, or the ability to write just InsideAgent? A. No, the ability to write InsideAgent type code that executes InsideAgent's functionalities. Q. Okay. So, are you talking about InsideAgent itself? A. Well, that's our product, yes. Q. Right. What is . . . the trade secret that you said Dick Brooks stole  the ability to write InsideAgent? A. That's one of the things. Q. Okay. So we've got the ability to write code and we've got the ability to write InsideAgent. Am I right so far? Q. Okay. What else? A. Well, compilations  we don't want to get into that, its highly technical, but  Q. Well, is it a part of what you're saying Dick Brooks stole from you? A. Well, it's one of the things he learned how to do with regard to InsideAgent. . . . Q. Well, if we're here about a lawsuit against Mr. Brooks for stealing things, I think we need to know what he's accused of stealing. So, if you're accusing him of stealing some of your compilations, I need to know what they are? A. When you write code or when you assemble a body of information, you compile things. Those end up being called compilations. Q. Right. Any particular compilations you can name for the jury, that Mr. Brooks stole from your company? A. Yes. Q. Which one? A. The information about how to write a product that can be installed quickly, that performs all the functions of InsideAgent. Q. Okay. Well, you were talking about compilations and now you're back to the ability to write code. Are we  A. Well, the compilations contain the information required to write InsideAgent. . . . . Q. Okay. So, have we exhausted the compilations part? A. I guess so. . . . . Q. What about methods? A. Well, the method  when you write software, if you had done something before, and you want to create a product that is going to perform the same functions basically, as a product that you have worked on previously, you use the same, probably devices, methods, techniques, processes, and procedures. You know which ones to use and you know which ones not to use. And I believe that he used all those things to help create the product that ended up being call[ed] TransactionBridge. Q. So, the lessons he learned from experience are 8760's trade secret? A. Yes, with specific regard to the development of InsideAgent, that's correct. . . . [W]hen you develop a product as well received and successful as InsideAgent, and then you go somewhere else, and you work on a product that ends up being relatively the same, it is my opinion that you would use the same devices, methods, techniques, processes, and procedures, or you'd be an idiot. Q. So, it's the lessons he learned through trial and error, right? A. Yes. . . . . Q. So, his experience as a programmer for 8760, is a trade secret of 8760? A. His and everyone else that reported to him. . . .  Challenged by Brooks's counsel at a later point to put on evidence for the jury, of what you contend Dick Brooks stole, Williams continued: A. And the things that are within his experience that are trade secrets to me, are with specific regard to creating the product InsideAgent. He knew all of the following: Methods, techniques, processes, procedures, he knew what computer software to use, he knew what the mistakes that had been made were, he knew what the successes were. All of that experience within the context of being used with InsideAgent, okay, are trade secrets. . . . . Q. And just intangibly saying, well, it's methods, it's devices, it's processes. Until we know exactly which method, and which process, and which device  A. Okay. Let me say it this way. See if this helps you. The devices, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, all of those things that allow you to create a product like InsideAgent, which were garnered at 8760, are those things that I know  Q. Okay. A. Dick took to Systrends and helped them create TransactionBridge product. Q. What process that is unique to 8760 that's not known or used by other software companies, did Dick Brooks steal from your company? A. I'm not saying that our processes are any different than anyone else's in the general. In the specific, the fact that you do it to create a specific product like InsideAgent, it's different than [the] process going on anywhere else. . . . . Q. But what we've got so far, I think Mr. Williams, is just an intangible list. You're saying he stole processes, devices, methods, techniques, and we haven't heard what they are. A. I think I've tried to do my best to tell you what they are. I've tried to answer that question. Maybe I'm not doing a very good job, but I've told you several times now, that the methods, techniques, processes, procedures, that you use in specifically, not generally what's used in the industry. Q. Right. A. I agree that programmers use similar techniques in similar places, but when you specifically use those processes, to develop a specific product like InsideAgent, you learn specific things, and you learn specific processes, specific methods, specific techniques, and procedures, and that is what I am alleging  . . . . Can you name a software company that doesn't design software this way? A. I don't, I would assume that most do, but maybe people just sit down and write. I have no idea. Q. Okay. But this is the process you contend was a trade secret of 8760 that Dick Brooks stole? A. No, the process is not what I claim he stole. What I claim he stole was the experience within that  the specific experience of having gone through the process, in the specific of the product InsideAgent, which looks a lot like TransactionBridge. At various other points during his testimony Williams attempted further to describe the trade secret he alleged had been misappropriated, but in each instance resorted to similarly generalized characterizations. In its brief to this Court, Group 8760 continues to invoke somewhat amorphous concepts concerning its trade secret, arguing that it was the `process'  `the know how'  of creating InsideAgent (Group 8760's brief, p. 52), arguing that Brooks learned the process for creating and developing InsideAgent. His `know how' of this process  as opposed to the general knowledge he acquired about GISB or computer language while working at 8760  is what is protected by trade secret law and is what he was prohibited from disclosing or using. Group 8760 bore the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, that Brooks and Systrends were guilty of an actual misappropriation, as defined by the ATSA. Group 8760's theory of the misappropriation, as pleaded in its last amended complaint, as described by Williams in his trial testimony, and as delineated by the trial judge during his jury instructions, related exclusively to the alleged use by Systrends of Brooks's knowledge of the process of creating InsideAgent in the development of Systrends' TransactionBridge product. Group 8760's attempts to prove that claim were in the form of opinions expressed by Buccigross and Williams and inferences Group 8760 sought to have witnesses draw from the contents of certain e-mails placed in evidence. Buccigross, however, could not identify any particular Group 8760 trade secret used to develop TransactionBridge and, after admitting that he had no personal knowledge of how TransactionBridge was designed, developed, or operated, could only answer, when asked how he could say that anything out of InsideAgent had been used in TransactionBridge, I'm telling what I feel in my heart. Williams, for his part, acknowledged that there was no contention that Brooks had taken with him any Group 8760 files, software, books, or literature but speculated that [w]hen you develop a product as well received and successful as InsideAgent, and then you go somewhere else, and you work on a product that ends up being relatively the same, it is my opinion that you would use the same devices, methods, techniques, processes, and procedures, or you'd be an idiot. Similarly, Williams opined: [B]ecause obviously they did create a product that competes with us, and Dick and Casey [Payne] were involved, and I think that shows  I think that evidence shows, that these trade secrets were taken from us where we used them at 8760 to create InsideAgent, and they were taken to Systrends, and now  they didn't have a product like ours before Dick went over there, and now they do  it looks like  if [it] looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Group 8760 argues in its appellate brief that Williams testified that InsideAgent and TransactionBridge were identical in terms of providing a GISB solution and shared numerous similar components, citing two segments of Williams's testimony. (Group 8760's brief, p. 54.) All Williams actually said in those referenced instances, however, was that both InsideAgent and TransactionBridge performed many of the same functions, while acknowledging that they differed in various other functions. When challenged to point to any evidence, apart from a reference in an e-mail to RoboBB (to be addressed later in this opinion), that anything from InsideAgent had been used from a programming or architectural or design standpoint in the TransactionBridge product, Williams responded only that he could compare what Systrends said on its Web site about what TransactionBridge did and we could look at what GISBAgent does, and they are very, very similar. Now if you are saying code  I don't expect the code to look the same. He went on to acknowledge that there was no evidence indicating that Systrends used any GISBAgent code and no evidence that any of the architecture of GISBAgent was used in TransactionBridge. In addressing the lack of any direct evidence of misappropriation of trade secrets used in creating InsideAgent in connection with the development of TransactionBridge, Group 8760 argues in its brief: Of course, 8760 does not have a snapshot or video recording of Brooks disclosing his knowledge of the `process' to Systrends. But what 8760 does have is an e-mail showing Brooks talking to Casey Payne about one aspect of this process  the RoboBB component of InsideAgent. (Px. 216) There, Brooks instructs Payne to refer to the method by which they, when working for 8760, created the RoboBB component of InsideAgent and utilize it when developing TransactionBridge. This specific `know how' regarding the creation of RoboBB was trade secret protected, which Brooks and Systrends violated. (Group 8760's brief, pp. 53-55; references to the record and a footnote omitted.) The e-mail in question, introduced as plaintiff's exhibit 216, consisted of an inquiry by Casey Payne to Brooks on January 31, 2002, referencing a GISB question and Brooks's reply. Payne's e-mail to Brooks read: I have two more quick questions regarding the error notifications that are sent back to the client. This happens after the server receives the client's request msg., and after the connection is closed. After the decryption processing, if any errors happen, the server makes a connection back to the client's server to send the error message. Is this correct? Also, as far as determining whether the error notification will be digitally signed, this will have been previously determined and we will know of this part of the TPA as it will be stored in the DB. Is this correct? Brooks's response, e-mailed to Payne later that same day, answered Payne's first question by stating: Yes. The error message is actually placed in the outbound `queue'/directory and at the next interval the file will be sent (remember RoboBB . . . ). Williams contended during his direct testimony that Brooks's reference to RoboBB was intended to remind Payne how a piece of Group 8760 software performed the error-notification function. On cross-examination, however, Williams acknowledged that the GISB standards themselves spoke to how error messages were done, and when asked if Payne's question in that regard was not actually asking about GISB standards, Williams answered, I'm not sure if it is just about the standards or not. I think there may be more than that, but I'm not going to say that. Williams did acknowledge that [t]he error notification is part of the standard and that encryption and decryption are required by the standard. Williams described RoboBB as a piece of code Group 8760 had developed to serve as a batch browser that performed various functions, but he explained: I am not a programmer, I mean I did some programming, but I didn't program that code. I only know of RoboBB through hearing the term and observing our developers using RoboBB. I did not write it. . . . I am not a programmer, I just know that RoboBB is something that Group 8760 programmers developed while Dick and Casey were at 8760 and it is an important part of GISBAgent and InsideAgent. Williams expressed the opinion that knowing how to write RoboBB, having written it, the process you went through, the architecture you went through, the road you went down, all of that is important. And that is a trade secret, knowing how to do it is a trade secret. Williams did not claim, however, that the task RoboBB performed represented a trade secret. Further, he acknowledged that he had no information indicating that any part of the RoboBB code had been used in any way by Systrends or that it appeared in any form in TransactionBridge, explaining that he had not seen the code for TransactionBridge. In the end, he summarized his argument about what the January 31, 2002, e-mail exchange between Williams and Brooks revealed, by stating: All I know, is that from this e-mail, Dick is telling Casey, remember how we did it at Group 8760 with InsideAgent. Do the same way in TransactionBridge or GISB EDM for ERCOT. Whenever, this is January, this would have been GISB EDM for ERCOT. Of course, because Payne was already fully familiar with the process involved in the development of RoboBB, the reference to that code by Brooks would not involve a disclosure of it. When Williams was asked what evidence he had that Systrends used RoboBB in developing TransactionBridge, given that the GISB standards necessitated employment of a batch browser and there was no evidence indicating that RoboBB's code or architecture had been used in TransactionBridge, he answered only, I would say the e-mail is the evidence. Group 8760 relies on the cumulative effect of inferences it says are derivable from that e-mail and other e-mails to argue that the jury could have reasonably inferred that Brooks disclosed and Systrends used 8760 trade secrets in the creation of the TransactionBridge software. (Group 8760's principal brief, p. 55.) For example, Williams referenced during his testimony a January 13, 2002, e-mail inquiry from an IBM global-services consultant to Brooks at Systrends, inquiring does Systrends now have product(s), like GISBAgent?, and Brooks's reply, the answer is, not yet; ). According to Williams, that answer represented a wink and a smile in Internet jargon. I could not believe that. To me, this means, we are going to have it pretty soon. That's what we're work[ing] on. Williams also pointed to an e-mail Brooks sent to a Systrends official upon being advised by him on December 21, 2001, that PEPCO had chosen Systrends IP NetSolution over Group 8760's product, in which Brooks stated that if the PEPCO executive in question likes GISBAgent. He's going to LOVE XMLbridge version 2.0. Williams opined, it looks to me like Dick is saying, I know what GISBAgent is like, and you know, he's going to love XML version 2.0 because it's just like it. If he is working with Systrends and he is comparing the two  then he is talking about our trade secrets. We have examined all of the e-mails in question and have considered the inferences counsel for Group 8760 sought to have various witnesses draw from them, and we cannot agree that those e-mails, individually or collectively, or in conjunction with any of the other evidence relied on by Group 8760, constitute substantial evidence establishing Group 8760's claim that Systrends in fact used trade secrets of Group 8760 in creating the TransactionBridge software. Group 8760 also argues in its brief that Brooks and Systrends' willingness to hide the most crucial evidence supporting 8760's claims creates [a reasonable] inference of misappropriation. (Group 8760's brief, p. 55.) Group 8760 correctly notes that this Court held in May v. Moore, 424 So.2d 596, 603 (Ala.1982), that the spoliation, or attempt to suppress material evidence by a party to a suit, favorable to an adversary, is sufficient foundation for an inference of his guilt of negligence. (Group 8760's brief, p. 42.) The evidence Group 8760 says Brooks and Systrends attempted to hide consisted of some documents and e-mails the attorney for Group 8760 suggested during his questioning of Brooks and Darnell had not been produced by them as a part of their responses to properly served document-production requests. When the attorney questioned Brooks about four of the items Group 8760 now argues were withheld, Brooks explained that if the document-production request to which the attorney was referring (the content or date of which are not identified in the trial record) had been sent to Brooks after April 2003, he would not have had certain of the documents in his possession because he left Systrends' employ that month. Brooks also explained that it was his understanding that the documents being sought belonged to Systrends and that he was not authorized independently to disclose them, but that he would have assumed that Systrends would have produced them. Moreover, Brooks pointed out that at least one of the e-mails in question had been distributed to the Texas Data Transport Work Group, of which Buccigross was a member. Darnell was questioned concerning only three e-mails Group 8760 says he withheld from discovery, the same ones about which Brooks had been questioned. When counsel for Group 8760 suggested that Darnell had not produced those materials to Group 8760, Darnell responded: I don't really know. We gave you 22,000 pages or something of documents. Now, we told you we weren't going to give you the documents that went to the list serve, that you guys were on the list serve, TDTWG [Texas Data Technology Working Group]. There were like 20,000, 40,000 pages that went to that. So, you know these documents, I believe were sent to TDTWG. . . . . I know for a fact that these, at least this one, went to the TDTWG, because this was the spec that Dick did, and we told you that we weren't going give you all those whatever million pages that were on that list and besides, Jim Buccigross was on the list serve, so you already had them. When counsel for Group 8760 challenged Darnell on the basis that he could not state under oath that he had given the e-mails to Group 8760, Darnell answered: Well, that's true because, what I did, I told my person that works in e-mail to print out those 22,000 pages and give them to you. I didn't print them out. I didn't look at them. But I know for a fact, that you should have got them. And this particular one went to ERCOT and a lot of people at ERCOT had it. So, it wasn't exactly Systrends only. It was for ERCOT and they spread it out amongst themselves. All that Group 8760 presented in opposition to these explanations was the testimony of Williams that he had gone through the approximately 22,000 documents produced by Systrends and had not found among them the three e-mails about which Brooks and Williams were questioned. If the evidence warrants, a trial judge may properly charge a jury in a civil case, using Alabama Pattern Jury Instructions: Civil, 15.13, that if the jury is reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the defendant did or attempted to wrongfully destroy, hide, conceal, alter, or otherwise tamper with material evidence, then that fact may be considered as an inference of defendant's guilt, culpability, or awareness of the defendant's negligence. Group 8760 submitted to the trial judge a requested jury charge that would have advised the jury that if it found that a party willfully suppressed[,] hid or destroyed evidence in order to prevent its being presented in this trial, [it] may consider such suppression, hiding or destruction, in determining what inferences to draw from the evidence or facts in the case. The judge declined to give the charge or to incorporate its substance into the oral charge, and the jury was not otherwise instructed in any fashion that it might infer guilt or culpability on the part of either Brooks or Systrends if it found that either or both of them had wrongfully hidden or concealed material evidence or had attempted to do so. For all that appears, the trial judge was not satisfied that sufficient evidence had been adduced, as opposed to argument of counsel, that Brooks or Systrends had attempted wrongfully to hide or conceal the items in question. At any rate, the jury was not instructed that it could draw any adverse inference from any deficiencies in the document-production responses of Brooks and Systrends; consequently, Group 8760 cannot now shore up its evidentiary presentation by arguing such an inference. The trial judge properly charged the jury that it might draw reasonable inferences from the facts established by the evidence, but that the inference may not be based upon another inference. In other words, you can't have one inference and you base an inference on that inference. `Evidence . . . which affords nothing more than mere speculation, conjecture, or guess is insufficient to warrant the submission of a case to the jury.' Sprayberry v. First Nat'l Bank, 465 So.2d 1111, 1114 (Ala.1984). Finley v. Patterson, 705 So.2d 826, 830 (Ala.1997). An `inference' is a reasonable deduction of fact, unknown or unproved, from a fact that is known or proved. See, Malone Freight Lines, Inc. v. McCardle, 277 Ala. 100, 167 So.2d 274 (1964). `[A]n inference cannot be derived from another inference.' Malone, 277 Ala. at 107, 167 So.2d at 281. An inference must be based on a known or proved fact. Id.  Khirieh v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 594 So.2d 1220, 1224 (Ala.1992). The inferences on which Group 8760 seeks to rely in arguing that it presented substantial evidence indicating that Systrends used Group 8760 trade secrets involved in creating InsideAgent to develop Systrends' TransactionBridge software are not reasonably derivable from the facts in evidence, but rather impermissibly require that inferences be based upon inferences. As previously noted, uncontradicted testimony established the absence of similarities between Group 8760's InsideAgent software and Systrends' TransactionBridge software except for matters clearly within the public domain. In the final analysis, Group 8760 did not carry its burden of proving by substantial evidence the particular claim it made under the ATSA, that Systrends used trade secrets of Group 8760, which evolved during the development of InsideAgent, to create TransactionBridge. Brooks and Systrends each properly asserted that failure of proof in moving for a judgment as a matter of law at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case and again at the conclusion of all the evidence. Brooks and Systrends each thereafter reiterated that ground in their respective renewed motions for a judgment as a matter of law filed after entry of judgment. That ground was well taken, as explained above, and the motions for judgment as a matter of law should have been granted with respect to Group 8760's claims asserting that Brooks and Systrends had violated the ATSA. Consequently, we reverse the judgments to that extent and remand the case for the entry of judgments in favor of Brooks and Systrends on Group 8760's claims against them based on misappropriation of a trade secret. Because of this disposition, we need not consider Brooks and Systrends' separate argument that Brooks's knowledge and know how of the process of creating and developing InsideAgent would not constitute a trade secret under the ATSA. Also, because the appeal by Group 8760 argues only that the trial judge erred in declining to grant it a permanent injunction against Systrends pursuant to § 8-27-4(1)a. of the ATSA and attorney fees as the prevailing party on its ATSA claim under § 8-27-4(2), our holding as to that claim warrants affirmance in Group 8760's appeal.