<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FLIR Systems v. Parrish</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/flir-systems-v-parrish/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/flir-systems-v-parrish/</link>
	<description>The First Blog Dedicated To California Employment Law. Since 2004.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:42:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: TRG v. Galante &#124; Storm's California Employment Law</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/flir-systems-v-parrish/#comment-149</link>
		<dc:creator>TRG v. Galante &#124; Storm's California Employment Law</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:42:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=700#comment-149</guid>
		<description>[...] My only comment is that the courts could eliminate a lot of so-called &#8220;trade secrets&#8221; litigation and other back-door attempts to create and enforce covenants not to compete in California by continuing with the trend of cases we&#8217;ve seen this summer, including TRG and Flir. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] My only comment is that the courts could eliminate a lot of so-called &#8220;trade secrets&#8221; litigation and other back-door attempts to create and enforce covenants not to compete in California by continuing with the trend of cases we&#8217;ve seen this summer, including TRG and Flir. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

