State ex rel. Ampco Metal, Inc. v. O'Neill
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCurrie, J.
If Ampco is required to give evidence in public as to- the nature of its trade secrets which it seeks to protect in the pending circuit court action, such public disclosure will destroy the value of such trade secrets so sought to be protected. In Cincinnati Bell Foundry Co. v. Dodds (1887), 19 Wkly. Law Bull. 84, 10 Ohio Decisions Reprint, 154, 155, Judge Taft, later chief justice of the United States supreme court, declared:. “The property in a.secret process is the power to.make use of it to the exclusion of the world. If the world knows the process, then the property disappears. *534There can…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- E. I. Du Pont De Nemours Powder Co. v. MaslandSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- People v. JelkeNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
- Stone v. GossSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1903
- State Ex Rel. Baker v. UtechtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
- State ex rel. Hustisford Light, Power & Manufacturing Co. v. GrimmWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- United States v. HubbardCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
- State Ex Rel. La Crosse Tribune v. Circuit Court for La Crosse CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
- United States v. International Business Machines Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1975
- State Ex Rel. Cullen v. CeciWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
- State Ex Rel. Bilder v. Township of DelavanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.