6.2 Assignment: Intellectual Property 1. Clifford Witter was a dance instructor at the Arthur Murray Dance Studios in Cleveland. As a condition of employment, he signed a contract not to work for a competitor. Subsequently, he was hired by the Fred Astaire Dancing Studios, where he taught the method that he had learned at Arthur Murray. Arthur Murray sued to enforce the noncompete contract. What would be result? What additional information, if any, would you need to know to decide the case? 2. Greenberg worked for Buckingham Wax as its chief chemist, developing chemical formulas for products by testing other companies’ formulas and modifying them. Brite Products bought Buckingham’s goods and resold them under its own name. Greenberg went to work for Brite, where he helped Brite make chemicals substantially similar to the ones it had been buying from Buckingham. Greenberg had never made any written or oral commitment to Buckingham restricting his use of the chemical formulas he developed. May Buckingham stop Greenberg from working for Brite? May it stop him from working on formulas learned while working at Buckingham? Why?

Non-compete seems to be a standard procedure in several areas of the globe to safeguard information. There must have been 2 factors for something like a non-competent specified period in exchange, as shown in this scenario:

There's got to have been a state secret that is hidden from the public.
Witter uses trade secrets for his previous venture.

Neither of the circumstances confirms that realizing as well as trying to teach how and when to start dancing seems to be completely obvious and does not quantity to state secrets. If this were a style of dance that is already recognized mostly to Anthony Murray as well as Witter, therefore the case might have been dissimilar. And while this skill is trained to every learner, it isn't a secret.

Interestingly, Witter doesn't use trade secrets because it is a common experience of dance to learn well how to dance. Haven't broken the non-competition.

(2)...

Buckingham may, if he indeed wishes, promote to prevent Greenberg from operating on such formulations, and even using them for many other businesses, as he created certain formulas although employed at Buckingham. This also acknowledges that all these formulas have been created again for the corporation of Buckingham and therefore any exposure of such formulas to some of its rival businesses directly impacts the company of Buckingham.

They should negotiate through Brite the current landlord of Greenberg, not to require Greenberg to provide it, and that therefore Brite, and in so doing, is indicting the requirements including its Intellectual Property Act.
Nevertheless, it seems from either the content of the issue that there was no Non-Disclosure Agreement among Buckingham as well as Greenberg.
However although there would have been a long-standing contractual partnership involving Brite & Buckingham, hardly any agreement concerning digital content as well as Trade Secret sharing including non-disclosure had already been concluded.

In consideration of it all, it would be very unlikely against Buckingham to just get a judge's order targeting Greenberg as well as Briton to prosecute them or even to prevent themselves from being used formulas established by Greenberg although employed for Buckingham.