Trade Secrets: A Good Defense

Central Valley Business Times' Cargill loses lawsuit against former employees contains what I think is the best argument to use as a defense to a trade secrets case.

"After a three-week trial, the U.S. District Court jury took less than a day to decide in favor of the three defendants.

The jury returned a unanimous verdict not only rejecting every claim brought by Cargill, but the jury also announced, through their verdict, that Cargill's claims against the departing employees was 'objectively specious' which was defined by the court as completely lacking in any evidentiary support, say the trio’s attorneys.

The defense argued that Cargill had no evidence that any trade secrets were acquired or used by any of the defendants and that the real motive behind Cargill's efforts was to unfairly compete and crush the new and much smaller upstart company."

No trade secrets, case filed to stifle competition sounds exactly like what it was: a loser. Would be interesting to know if Cargill had taken the proper steps for protecting its trade secrets and which would mean it just shot itself in foot twice. Or if this is a case of overreaching - which is how it appears here.