[sandworm101]

Note the words "can qualify" and "may include". It's not a matter of secret keeping. It is a fact-specific analysis turning on the nature of the product and the specific information on the list. Whether or not one could theoretically gather the information from public sources, sources outside the list, is also a factor. A simple list of buyers for a simple product may not qualify regardless of attempted protections. Not all lists are protected. Imho, given the various rules, I would say the default in California is still non-protection absent exceptional circumstances.

I totally dismiss the linked Fenwick PFD. According to my pdf reader that document was last updated on "Tue 05 Apr 2005 04:49:08 PM PDT". It's totally out of date and therefore untrustworthy as to specifics of current CA law. I'm a little shocked that it is still on their server.

[anseljh]

California trade secrets law has not changed drastically since 2005. If you have actual information to the contrary, by all means, point to it.

You're correct that there's more to it than just keeping something secret:

- It has to also be valuable because of the secrecy, so the number I'm thinking in my head doesn't count. But customer lists typically do have value because of secrecy.

- Trade secrecy can be destroyed if the secret gets out.

There's no reason to argue in the abstract. Here's how California law actually defines "trade secret" -- Civil Code 3426.1(d):

(d) “Trade secret” means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:

(1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

(2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xh...

[sandworm101]

I said the document was untrustworthy, not necessarily incorrect. It is too old to be relied upon. It's not a question of whether the material is accurate. Any lawyer advising a client would be negligent if he or she looked to such dated summaries of the law. They aren't worth reading given the many current summaries are available elsewhere. Now if the firm wants to reissue the document, then perhaps.

[anseljh]

Well, good thing you're not my client. :)