Ex-director permanently banned from revealing confidential info A businessman has been ordered never to improperly reveal confidential information belonging to a company where he used to be a director. Former Hedgehog Golf Company director Frank Hauser has been banned by the High Court from revealing information about the company. The High Court said that Hauser had been prepared to …
"The injunction prevents Hauser from disclosing information relating to a studded device, resembling a hedgehog, which straps to the wheels of golf trolleys in wet conditions and is designed to make it easier for players to cart their clubs around a golf course."
This is presumably for a specific target market - ie. Essex golfing man ?
I would have liked to hear the guy's defense...
"The injunction prevents Hauser from disclosing information relating to a studded device, resembling a hedgehog, which straps to the wheels of golf trolleys in wet conditions and is designed to make it easier for players to cart their clubs around a golf course."
And people say that the game of golf is rife with stupid and / or expensive gadgets bought by saps in the mistaken belief it will improve their game. I hope this miracle invention puts paid to such notions.
There's a bunch of potentially damaging stuff he might know that isn't in the patent itslef. For example, it is a legal requirement to reveal to the patent office all prior art you know of that may be relevant to your application. If the company deliberately withheld potentially damaging info, then they broke the law. Like having seen snow tyres before.
Strange however that a court might grant an injunction who's sole purpose would be to cover up illegality, so it's probably something else...
"A businessman has been ordered never to improperly reveal confidential information belonging to a company where he used to be a director."
Er, if it's improper to reveal it, isn't he already implicitly 'ordered' not to so reveal by whatever forms the basis of the impropriety?
If the basis of the impropriety is founded in law, then if he is prepared to ignore that law and reveal anyway (as it appears he has), what increased impact is there from this new ruling and how is he any less likely to ignore it?
If the basis of the impropriety is not in fact founded in law, then what basis is there for now so founding it through this ruling?
Yes. I'm having a bad day :-P.
You are ordered never to reveal that your erstwhile company has a fiddly new golfing accessory, as described in detail here, to anyone. If you reveal its existence, you will be prosecuted. If anyone sees this guy describing or discussing the item shown here in this blueprint, call the police.
"The injunction already says its a "studded device, resembling a hedgehog, which straps to the wheels of golf trolleys". Presumably rivals can buy one and take it apart to analyse it in detail.
Is there much more to know?"
Er... How much it cost to make, what the minimum profit they are willing to accept is, who they are interested in targeting for sales.....etc. etc....
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
