This is SUPER wrong. Customer lists were one of the original trade secrets under common law, and they still are trade secrets--as long as they're kept secret.

More modern applications:

"Business Information Trade secrets in this category may include: ... Customer lists" http://www.fenwick.com/FenwickDocuments/Trade_Secrets_Protec...

"California court affirms that customer lists can qualify as trade secrets" http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ea22e316-7210-...

The case you cited in your last link could have been decided after I read whatever it was I read. It could be that it's pretty hard to make and keep such lists as trade secrets, or maybe what I read referred to just a list of customers with all that other information, but I remember it being pretty definitive, and, generally agreeing with your initial points, startling.

The law of customer lists being trade secrets is literally centuries old.

Perhaps you're remembering a recent case about whether LinkedIn contacts could qualify as trade secrets, which tested where to draw the line:

http://blogs.orrick.com/trade-secrets-watch/2014/10/27/new-s...

No. The tradition is old. The law has been revisited and updates many hundreds of time.

Um. That "old" "tradition" is binding law until it's overruled. It hasn't been.

Again, here are the current California trade secrets statutes:

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

Lol, accepting your 'tradition' argument (I don't) any such traditions would be overturned by the very statute you cite.

"3426.8.This title shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this title among states enacting it."

That's the law. It overturns everything prior. All commonlaw interpretations (the closest legal thing to tradition) before it are void in the face of this new law.

Fyi. California's law is actual a cut-and-past of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act as adopted by basically every other state in the union. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Trade_Secrets_Act.

I admit, my attention was divided earlier between Hacker News and my day job as a California IP litigator.

Here you go:

Yes, the UTSA statute is "the law". But it's not the ONLY law. Where there are gaps, courts look to case law, just like in any other area of law. And the UTSA was drafted with the old common law in mind, continuing much of it, but codifying it. That's why courts DO look at the older common law to inform their interpretations of the UTSA.

This is from page 1 of the Prefatory Note in the 1985 final draft of the UTSA:

"The Uniform Act codifies the basic principles of common law trade secret protection, preserving its essential distinctions from patent law."

With that, I'm done with this thread. We are way off-topic since the lawsuit in the original post doesn't even have a trade secret claim. I'm also done dispensing free legal advice for the night.

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.

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...

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.

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

I'm completely onboard with california on that one. Customer lists are not secret. Each and every customer knows they are a customer. Certainly the tax man knows who is an isn't a customer, along with any number of credit cards companies and banks that might process orders. So the alleged secret isn't really kept in-house.