Thanks for that. I and others no doubt question your motiv-ation to post such a lot of misinformation. Who was it meant to benefit?
We shall see the outcome of the costs distribution in time.
Defendant's costs are not limited to the costs of their legal team as you may well know. Symphony had raised fund-s to cover a possible negative outcome for the company. These can now be allocated entirely to the busi-ness.
The three points that you state as relevant to the case were never three items. There were two points in the case. One was admitted by Symphony i.e. that they had agreed not to disclose confidential information.
The second point of the case was whether the information was confidential.
The judge in the original trial stated that it was not confidential and this appeal has upheld that view.
The information in the public domain was that EPI provided additives of their own formulation to enable plastic products to degrade them in a fixed time span.
Symphony then produced their own additives to incorporate in place of EPI's additives.
EPI admitted that Symphony had not copied the additive, at least they admitted that it was not the same as their own.
Syms stock quotes
Syms stock charts
Follow this thread
