Rule of law -- a concise summary of the main precedent established. Support with quotes form the book

In one of my questions I refer to a nondisclosure agreement and whether or not being able to use knowledge learned in freelance work. Although it varies, I will cover one of the most important items of information when starting a new job, a client list. These lists are quite often covered in nondisclosure agreements and end up in court when a former employee uses them. When this issue comes to court, a judge usually considers a few items before deciding whether or not a customer database qualifies as a trade secret. First of all, is the information easy to obtain? For example, if all the information can be easily gotten from the phone book, it cannot be protected. Another consideration would be whether the list contains other things besides just phone numbers and addresses, such as order history and special pricing which would add more value to the list. How much effort it took to assemble the list is would also come into play. Whether or not the employee contributed to the list, helped create the list and had contact with the customers is a factor that would be taken into account. If a business can prove that the list is exclusive to their business and has been in use a long time, it will probably be protected. Our book gave examples of each:

“Example 1: A salesman worked for an insurance company selling credit life insurance to automobile dealers. When he switched jobs to work for a competing insurance company, he took his customer list and contacted the customers because the names of the automobile dealers were easily ascertainable by other means and because the sales man had contributed to the creation of the list. (Lincoln Towers Ins. Agency v. Farrell, 99 Ill. App. 3d 353, 425 N.E.2d 1034 (1981).)” CP&T pg.497, Stim, 9th Ed.

“Example 2: Former employees took the client list of a temporary employee service. The former employees argued that the list could not be a trade secret since the information could be obtained through other means. A court disagreed and prevented the ex-employees from using the list, because it could not be shown, using public information, which companies were likely to use temporary employees and because the list also included such information as the volume of the customer’s business, specific customer requirements, key managerial customer contacts, and billing rates. (Courtesy Temporary Serv., Inc. v. Camacho, 222 Cal App 3d 1278 (1990).) CP&T pg.497, Stim, 9th Ed.