<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Storm&#039;s Employment Law &#187; trade secrets</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/tag/trade-secrets/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com</link>
	<description>The First Blog Dedicated To California Employment Law. Since 2004.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 06 May 2012 15:29:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>TRG v. Galante</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/trg-v-galante/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/trg-v-galante/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:42:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee Mobility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade secrets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=724</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Go read Greg on TRG v. Galante. 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 &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/trg-v-galante/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/trg-v-galante/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FLIR Systems v. Parrish</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/flir-systems-v-parrish/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/flir-systems-v-parrish/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:59:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade secrets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=700</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is not the decision I was hoping for. It&#8217;s close, but it&#8217;s not quite there. Here&#8217;s the problem with this case: the facts are so overwhelmingly good for Parrish that it&#8217;s wishful thinking to assume this will happen to &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/flir-systems-v-parrish/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/flir-systems-v-parrish/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Edwards v. Arthur Anderson</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/edwards-v-arthur-anderson/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/edwards-v-arthur-anderson/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:18:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arthur Anderson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade secrets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=442</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#8217;s my very brief editorial on this case:  any reduction in the ability of parties to settle cases works against the supposed public policy in favor of settlement, clogs the courts, and makes us lawyers richer and everyone else poorer. &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/edwards-v-arthur-anderson/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/edwards-v-arthur-anderson/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Neville v. Chudacoff</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/neville-v-chudacoff/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/neville-v-chudacoff/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:52:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee Mobility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade secrets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/neville-v-chudacoff/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Second District Case No. B198253 Gregory Chudacoff was an attorney who represented Maxsecurity, Inc.  When Mark Neville left his employment with Maxsecurity, Chudacoff wrote a letter to Maxsecurity&#8217;s customers accussing Neville of various torts and advised them not to do &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/neville-v-chudacoff/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/neville-v-chudacoff/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

