CK • Washington.   Flugpreisdaten aus einer öffentlich zugänglichen Samm­lung sortierte ein Mitarbeiter in Diagrammen, die er bei seinem Ausscheiden aus dem Unternehmen mitnahm und trotz einer Vertraulichkeitsvereinbarung beim neuen Arbeitgeber einsetzte. Als er eine Klage wegen Ge­schäfts­ge­heim­nis­ver­let­zung erfolgreich abwehrte, ging der alte Arbeitgeber in die Revision und ge­wann in Air­Facts, Inc. v. Diego De Amezaga am 20. November 2018. Neben Wettbewerbsverbotsansprüchen beurteilt das Bun­des­be­ru­fungs­ge­richt des vierten Bezirks der USA in Richmond den Trade Secret-An­spruch le­sens­wert. Öf­fentliche Daten können nach dem Maryland Uniform Trade Sec­ret Act darstellen, wenn sie mühevoll weiterbearbeitet wurden:

We now turn to AirFacts' Maryland trade secrets claims. "To prove mis­appropriation of a trade secret [under the MUTSA], a plaintiff must show (1) that it possessed a valid trade secret, (2) that the de­fen­dant acquired its trade secret, and (3) that the defendant knew or should have known that the trade secret was acquired by im­pro­per means." …
[A] trade secret can be identified by:

(1) the extent to which the information is known outside of his business; (2) the extent to which it is known by em­ployees and others involved in his business; (3) the ex­tent of measures taken by him to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) the value of the information to him and to his competitors; (5) the amount or effort or mo­ney expended by him in developing the information; (6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others. Re­sta­te­ment (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b.

… Mr. de Amezaga's painstaking, expert arrangement of the ATPCO data made the Flowcharts inherently valuable separately and apart from the publicly available contents. It is the value Mr. de Amezaga added by incorporating "things from [his] head" that establishes the Flowcharts as unique items of economic value in AirFacts' field of endeavor.