<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.lexblog.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Trade Secret / Noncompete</title>
      <link>http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/</link>
      <description>Business, Employment, Intellectual Property, and Litigation Attorneys Focused on Trade Secret/Noncompete Issues</description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2010</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:08:25 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:08:25 -0600</pubDate>
      <generator>http://www.movabletype.org</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

            <feedburner:info uri="tradesecretnoncompete" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/index.xml" /><feedburner:emailServiceId>tradesecretnoncompete</feedburner:emailServiceId><feedburner:feedburnerHostname>http://feedburner.google.com</feedburner:feedburnerHostname><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://add.my.yahoo.com/rss?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tradesecretnoncompete.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/my/addtomyyahoo4.gif">Subscribe with My Yahoo!</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.newsgator.com/ngs/subscriber/subext.aspx?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tradesecretnoncompete.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.newsgator.com/images/ngsub1.gif">Subscribe with NewsGator</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://feeds.my.aol.com/add.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tradesecretnoncompete.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://o.aolcdn.com/favorites.my.aol.com/webmaster/ffclient/webroot/locale/en-US/images/myAOLButtonSmall.gif">Subscribe with My AOL</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/index.xml" src="http://www.bloglines.com/images/sub_modern11.gif">Subscribe with Bloglines</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.netvibes.com/subscribe.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tradesecretnoncompete.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.netvibes.com/img/add2netvibes.gif">Subscribe with Netvibes</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://fusion.google.com/add?feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tradesecretnoncompete.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://buttons.googlesyndication.com/fusion/add.gif">Subscribe with Google</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.pageflakes.com/subscribe.aspx?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tradesecretnoncompete.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.pageflakes.com/ImageFile.ashx?instanceId=Static_4&amp;fileName=ATP_blu_91x17.gif">Subscribe with Pageflakes</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.plusmo.com/add?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tradesecretnoncompete.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://plusmo.com/res/graphics/fbplusmo.gif">Subscribe with Plusmo</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/hp/AddRSS.aspx?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tradesecretnoncompete.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://img.tfd.com/hp/addToTheFreeDictionary.gif">Subscribe with The Free Dictionary</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.bitty.com/manual/?contenttype=rssfeed&amp;contentvalue=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tradesecretnoncompete.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.bitty.com/img/bittychicklet_91x17.gif">Subscribe with Bitty Browser</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.live.com/?add=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tradesecretnoncompete.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://tkfiles.storage.msn.com/x1piYkpqHC_35nIp1gLE68-wvzLZO8iXl_JMledmJQXP-XTBOLfmQv4zhj4MhcWEJh_GtoBIiAl1Mjh-ndp9k47If7hTaFno0mxW9_i3p_5qQw">Subscribe with Live.com</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://mix.excite.eu/add?feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tradesecretnoncompete.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://image.excite.co.uk/mix/addtomix.gif">Subscribe with Excite MIX</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.webwag.com/wwgthis.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tradesecretnoncompete.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.webwag.com/images/wwgthis.gif">Subscribe with Webwag</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.podcastready.com/oneclick_bookmark.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tradesecretnoncompete.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.podcastready.com/images/podcastready_button.gif">Subscribe with Podcast Ready</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.wikio.com/subscribe?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tradesecretnoncompete.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.wikio.com/shared/img/add2wikio.gif">Subscribe with Wikio</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.dailyrotation.com/index.php?feed=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tradesecretnoncompete.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.dailyrotation.com/rss-dr2.gif">Subscribe with Daily Rotation</feedburner:feedFlare><item>
         <title>Protecting Competitive Business Interests Through Non-Compete Clauses</title>
         
         <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~3/Z9rNG0q3HDc/</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/protecting-competitive-business-interests-through-noncompete-clauses/</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Non-Compete Clauses</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Noncompete</category>
         <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:41:58 -0600</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>David S. Sanders</dc:creator>
      
      <description>Ryan Bewersdorf and Nicolas Ellis&amp;nbsp;recently authored an article that explores what business interests can legitimately be protected through non-compete clauses.&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&amp;nbsp&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~4/Z9rNG0q3HDc" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/protecting-competitive-business-interests-through-noncompete-clauses/</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>Controlling The Message - The First Step</title>
         
         <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~3/zdKBY8C8dsQ/</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/controlling-the-message-the-first-step/</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Controlling the message</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Courtroom themes</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Litigation strategy</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Noncompete</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Trade Secret</category>
         <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:10:45 -0600</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>Michael Gay</dc:creator>
      
      <description>Whether its in politics, in advertising, or in a courtroom, persuasion is all about controlling the message. This is especially true in the classic non-compete case where the former employer is seeking to prevent a former employee from working for a competitor.

The themes used by trial lawyers in...&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&amp;nbsp&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~4/zdKBY8C8dsQ" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/controlling-the-message-the-first-step/</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>Silguero v. Creteguard - California Employers Beware (Yet Again)!</title>
         
         <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~3/X0cllwci9Bk/</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/silguero-v-creteguard-california-employers-beware-yet-again/</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">California</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Competition Agreement</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Confidentiality agreement</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Noncompete</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Silguero v. Creteguard</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Wrongful Termination</category>
         <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:26:21 -0600</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>John H. Douglas</dc:creator>
      
      <description>For employers that are looking for yet another reason not to do business in California, Silguero v. Creteguard, a July 30, 2010 decision of the California Court of Appeal, serves as a stark reminder of the minefield California businesses face on a day-to-day basis.

In Silguero, the plaintiff,...&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&amp;nbsp&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~4/X0cllwci9Bk" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/silguero-v-creteguard-california-employers-beware-yet-again/</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>Trade Secrets Protection</title>
         
         <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~3/cwQb5g_IKyk/</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/trade-secrets-protection/</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Confidentiality agreement</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Information Technology</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Trade Secrets</category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:52:14 -0600</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>John Carson</dc:creator>
      
      <description>Many companies do little to protect their trade secrets. They fail to ask themselves &amp;ldquo;what information would I not like to have in the hands of my competitors?&amp;rdquo; If a company does not protect its trade secrets, neither will a court. Companies should craft specific physical, information...&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&amp;nbsp&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~4/cwQb5g_IKyk" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/trade-secrets-protection/</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>From Trade Secrets to Newsletters, What Do Confidentiality Agreements Really Cover?</title>
         
         <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~3/Or-uuG0lnv8/</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/from-trade-secrets-to-newsletters-what-do-confidentiality-agreements-really-cover/</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/">Articles</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Confidential</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Confidentiality agreement</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Proprietary</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Trade Secrets</category>
         <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:38:49 -0600</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>Christi R. Adams </dc:creator>
      
      <description>A recent case filed in federal district court highlights a common issue employers face when enforcing their confidentiality and non-compete agreements against former employees. In its complaint, the employer claims that the employee agreed to return company documents if he quit or was fired. What...&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&amp;nbsp&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~4/Or-uuG0lnv8" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/from-trade-secrets-to-newsletters-what-do-confidentiality-agreements-really-cover/</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>Is That A Pin Dropping?  Limited Noise In The Months Following An Illinois Appellate Court's Rejection of the Legitimate Interest Test</title>
         
         <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~3/cDOMaV8ojt4/</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/is-that-a-pin-dropping-limited-noise-in-the-months-following-an-illinois-appellate-courts-rejection-of-the-legitimate-interest-test/</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Noncompete</category>
         <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:57:00 -0600</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>Martin J. Bishop</dc:creator>
      
      <description>Last Fall, the Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court ruled&amp;nbsp;in Sunbelt&amp;nbsp;Rentals, Inc. v. Ehlers, 915 N.E.2d 882 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009),&amp;nbsp;that an employer does not need to establish a legitimate interest (e.g., a long-standing customer relationship or confidential information) to...&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&amp;nbsp&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~4/cDOMaV8ojt4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/is-that-a-pin-dropping-limited-noise-in-the-months-following-an-illinois-appellate-courts-rejection-of-the-legitimate-interest-test/</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>Sticky Fingers Prove Costly for Departing Employees</title>
         
         <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~3/l2ULAq4hSCk/</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/sticky-fingers-prove-costly-for-departing-employees/</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">CFAA</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Computer</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Computer Fraud and Abuse Act</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Forensic examiner</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Trade Secret</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Trade Secrets</category>
         <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:05:35 -0600</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>David M. Lucey</dc:creator>
      
      <description>When four employees left a Connecticut investment advisory firm to start a competing business, they made the &amp;ldquo;mistake&amp;rdquo; of downloading client information from their old employer&amp;rsquo;s customer contact data base, transferring it to a home computer, and then sending it to a brokerage...&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&amp;nbsp&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~4/l2ULAq4hSCk" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/sticky-fingers-prove-costly-for-departing-employees/</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>Format Failure</title>
         
         <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~3/uvAxsDtbS7g/</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/format-failure/</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Trade Secrets</category>
         <pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 13:43:58 -0600</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>John F. Zabriskie </dc:creator>
      
      <description>As Marshall McLuhan once observed famously, &amp;quot;the medium is the message.&amp;quot;&amp;nbsp; Of course, he was a media theorist, not a law professor, so it comes as no surprise that his aphorism is flat wrong when applied to trade secrets, as a recent opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second...&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&amp;nbsp&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~4/uvAxsDtbS7g" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/format-failure/</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>Illinois Bill Offers a Renewed Attempt at Creating a "Covenant Not to Compete" Act</title>
         
         <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~3/AM3h0TsmT0A/</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/illinois-bill-offers-a-renewed-attempt-at-creating-a-covenant-not-to-compete-act/</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Attorney fee</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Covenant</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Illinois</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Legitimate business interest</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Noncompete</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Restrictive Covenant</category>
         <pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2010 11:51:24 -0600</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>LexBlog</dc:creator>
      
      <description>A bill has been introduced in the Illinois Legislature to create an &amp;quot;Illinois Covenants Not to Compete Act&amp;quot; (HB 4923, introduced January 15, 2010 by Rep. Rosemary Mulligan), following a previous failed effort on the same topic last year (HB 4040, introduced also by Rep. Mulligan)....&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&amp;nbsp&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~4/AM3h0TsmT0A" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/illinois-bill-offers-a-renewed-attempt-at-creating-a-covenant-not-to-compete-act/</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>In the News: March 14 - April 1, 2010</title>
         
         <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~3/TX5-YWpGF0w/</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/in-the-news-march-14-april-1-2010/</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">CFAA</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Computer Fraud and Abuse Act</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">In the News</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Noncompete</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Restrictive Covenant</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Trade Secret</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Trade Secrets</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Unfair Competition</category>
         <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:01:27 -0600</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>LexBlog</dc:creator>
      
      <description>Cases and issues making the headlines*:

It's All Fun and Games Until... (April 1) 

A man attending the Penny Arcade Expo (PAX) in Boston was reportedly arrested for allegedly stealing the code for a new game that has not yet released.&amp;nbsp;The code is reported to be valued at...&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&amp;nbsp&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~4/TX5-YWpGF0w" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/in-the-news-march-14-april-1-2010/</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>Forum Selection Clauses in Noncompete Agreements</title>
         
         <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~3/INDYAEX-aOs/</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/forum-selection-clauses-in-noncompete-agreements/</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Employees</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Employers</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Exclusive jurisdiction</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Federal district court</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Forum selection clauses</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Georgia</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Inconvenient</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Noncompete</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">State courts</category>
         <pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 05:52:30 -0600</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>David S. Sanders</dc:creator>
      
      <description>Given the public policy arguments that courts so frequently use when analyzing noncompetes, as well as the perceived unequal bargaining power between employers and employees, it might be surprising to note that some courts are willing to enforce forum selection clauses that choose a forum other...&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&amp;nbsp&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~4/INDYAEX-aOs" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/forum-selection-clauses-in-noncompete-agreements/</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>The Massachusetts Noncompete Debate... Continuing Coverage</title>
         
         <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~3/gr0wQ_kUs5Y/</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/the-massachusetts-noncompete-debate-continuing-coverage/</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Massachusetts</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Noncompete</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Noncompete bill</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Noncompete reform</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Restrictive Covenant</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Small business</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Trade Secret</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Trade Secrets</category>
         <pubDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:22:34 -0600</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>LexBlog</dc:creator>
      
      <description>In response to the significant and growing interest in the Massachusetts noncompete reform bill, this post will aggregate links to articles and information about the bill.&amp;nbsp; It will be updated regularly, so please check back.

    Massachusetts Noncompete Bill is Reported Out of Committee
   ...&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&amp;nbsp&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~4/gr0wQ_kUs5Y" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/the-massachusetts-noncompete-debate-continuing-coverage/</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>Why We Care</title>
         
         <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~3/JeeLMbjSsKU/</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/why-we-care/</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Non-compete</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Noncompete</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Noncompete litigation</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Noncompetition</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Restrictive Covenant</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Trade Secret</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Trade Secrets</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">UTSA</category>
         <pubDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:32:56 -0600</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>LexBlog</dc:creator>
      
      <description>Blogs like this (ones that are so focused on a specific&amp;nbsp;area of law)&amp;nbsp;may cause readers&amp;nbsp;to wonder why the authors spend so much time writing about so many different aspects of&amp;nbsp;the topic.&amp;nbsp; For the TSN blog, the reason is that we care.&amp;nbsp; (Nice, huh?)&amp;nbsp; Okay, but why do...&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&amp;nbsp&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~4/JeeLMbjSsKU" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/why-we-care/</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>Massachusetts Noncompete Bill is Reported Out of Committee</title>
         
         <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~3/6d0Bu-BcLTQ/</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/massachusetts-noncompete-bill-is-reported-out-of-committee/</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Garden Leave</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Inevitable disclosure</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Massachusetts</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Noncompete</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Trade Secret</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Trade Secrets</category>
         <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:36:55 -0600</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>LexBlog</dc:creator>
      
      <description>It is official:&amp;nbsp; The Massachusetts noncompete bill (of which I am the principal draftsperson) has been reported out of committee.&amp;nbsp; A copy is available here or by clicking on the picture to the right.

Upon a quick read, it appears that garden leave clauses have been removed.&amp;nbsp;...&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&amp;nbsp&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~4/6d0Bu-BcLTQ" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/massachusetts-noncompete-bill-is-reported-out-of-committee/</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>Protecting Key Business Relationships</title>
         
         <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~3/D8mItSDAgp4/</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/protecting-key-business-relationships/</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Aon</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">CFAA</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Computer Fraud and Abuse Act</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Marsh</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">New York</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Noncompete</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Nonsolicitation Agreement</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Trade Secret</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Trade Secrets</category>
         <pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 06:51:36 -0600</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>Jeffrey S. Kopp </dc:creator>
      
      <description>Unless a business manufactures or sells truly unique items, chances are it will have competitors seeking to secure the same business opportunities.&amp;nbsp; Competitors often use all tools at their disposal to secure that business, including targeting and offering employment to key employees of...&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&amp;nbsp&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~4/D8mItSDAgp4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/protecting-key-business-relationships/</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>Illinois Appellate Court: Violation of Contractual Post-Employment Non-Compete Does Not Extend Duration of the Restrictive Covenant</title>
         
         <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~3/VH0X7d3yH84/</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/illinois-appellate-court-violation-of-contractual-postemployment-noncompete-does-not-extend-duration-of-the-restrictive-covenant/</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Citadel Investment Group, LLC</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Employees</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Employers</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Illinois</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Non-compete</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Non-solicitation agreement</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Noncompete</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Restrictive Covenant</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Teza Technologies, LLC</category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:16:24 -0600</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>Michael M. Conway </dc:creator>
      
      <description>An employer's successful lawsuit to enjoin two former highly-skilled employees from operating a competing financial services company resulted in only a one-month-long preliminary injunction -- despite proof of the employees' violation of the agreement -- because the contract did not allow an...&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&amp;nbsp&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~4/VH0X7d3yH84" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/illinois-appellate-court-violation-of-contractual-postemployment-noncompete-does-not-extend-duration-of-the-restrictive-covenant/</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>Some Lessons from a Million Buck Case</title>
         
         <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~3/ROVKn80ZuFQ/</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/some-lessons-from-a-million-buck-case/</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Compete</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Confidentiality</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Employees</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Employers</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Employment</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Non-solicitation</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Noncompete</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Solicit</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Tennessee</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Trade Secret</category>
         <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:31:35 -0600</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>John (Jack) S. Lord, Jr.</dc:creator>
      
      <description>Almost $1 Million in damages awarded by a trial court in Tennessee in favor of an employer against a single former employee was recently upheld by a state court of appeals.&amp;nbsp; The Hamilton-Ryker Group, LLC v. Keymon, No. W2008-00936-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. Appl. Jan. 28, 2010).&amp;nbsp; Besides the...&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&amp;nbsp&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~4/ROVKn80ZuFQ" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/some-lessons-from-a-million-buck-case/</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>Georgia Moves a Step Closer to Noncompete Reform</title>
         
         <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~3/VG1gU4KqJ1c/</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/georgia-moves-a-step-closer-to-noncompete-reform/</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Employees</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Employers</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Franchisees</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Franchisors</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Georgia</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Noncompete</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Nonsolicitation Agreement</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Reformation</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Restrictive Covenant</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Unfair Competition</category>
         <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:49:50 -0600</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>Michael C. Lueder</dc:creator>
      
      <description>It may soon be a lot easier to enforce noncompete/nonsolicitation&amp;nbsp;agreements in Georgia.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Late last week the Georgia House Judiciary Committee&amp;nbsp;passed a resolution to amend the Georgia Constitution to allow the General Assembly to pass laws governing competitive activities...&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&amp;nbsp&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~4/VG1gU4KqJ1c" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/georgia-moves-a-step-closer-to-noncompete-reform/</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>In the News: January 3 - 25, 2010</title>
         
         <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~3/p1S3RPDDHZE/</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/in-the-news-january-3-25-2010/</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Computer Fraud and Abuse Act</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">In the News</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Noncompete</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Restrictive Covenant</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Trade Secrets</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Unfair Competition</category>
         <pubDate>Sun, 31 Jan 2010 08:31:43 -0600</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>LexBlog</dc:creator>
      
      <description>Cases and issues making the headlines*:

More Noncompetes and Celebrities (January 25)

CBS&amp;rsquo;s radio morning personality in DC, Donnie Simpson, is reportedly leaving CBS. According to the story in the Washington Post (here), Simpson will be prevented from joining a competitive station for 13...&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&amp;nbsp&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~4/p1S3RPDDHZE" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/in-the-news-january-3-25-2010/</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>Licensing Digital Forensic Examiners</title>
         
         <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~3/W2DNt3kjUdc/</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/licensing-digital-forensic-examiners/</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Computer</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Forensic examiner</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Michigan</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Non-compete</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/articles">Noncompete</category><category domain="http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/tags">Private investigator</category>
         <pubDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:41:15 -0600</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>Scott R. Kaspar </dc:creator>
      
      <description>By Jeffrey S. Kopp and Scott R. Kaspar


In non-compete cases, often the most powerful evidence that will convince a judge to enter an injunction is computer records and files showing that an employee or former employee has illegally downloaded confidential or trade secret information on his or her...&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&amp;nbsp&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/tradesecretnoncompete/~4/W2DNt3kjUdc" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://www.tradesecretnoncompete.com/licensing-digital-forensic-examiners/</feedburner:origLink></item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>
