[Nomentatus]

IANAL but I had (kinda unconsciously) assumed that what can be protected by trade secrets was broader than what patents protect (patents merely implementations - which might be broad.) So I'd like to know more; though I wouldn't be shocked (now that I think about it) if you're quite right.

In any case, even if the employee refuses to work on a given task, that's information. Having to say: "Yeah, I think you want somebody else to design that particular part" (implying "because they'll be freer to innovate and free to choose the optimal solution") is a big fat clue that could attract a lot of resources to the design of that part.

[dec0dedab0de]

As far as I understand it, the only time trade secrets are protected is when they are forced to be revealed in court. If for example Zildjan cymbals is in a lawsuit, and discovery requires that they divulge their trade secret for making cymbals, then the court will issue an NDA for everyone that sees it, and seal the records. However, if a former Zildjan employee writes a book with the details, then there is no protection. Which is why they only limit the secret to family members. Fun fact, Sabian uses the same secret technique, because it is the same family.

[Nomentatus]

No, that's one aspect of protection. Penalties apply otherwise see the Waymo/Uber case.

Apparently the US statutes of relevance are:

The Economic Espionage Act of 1996

The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016

Re publication I think you're referring to a possible US constitutional issue: https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publishing-trade-secrets