Nilssen v. Motorola, Inc.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Ole Nilssen (“Nilssen”) has brought suit against Motorola, Inc. and its subsidiary Motorola Lighting, Inc. (“Lighting”) (collectively “Motorola,” treated as a singular noun to avoid awkwardness) in connection with Motorola’s alleged theft of Nilssen’s trade secrets before Motorola’s 1989 entry into the electronic ballast industry. Nilssen asserts claims for (1) breach of confidential relationship, (2) theft of trade secrets under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act (“Act” or “Illinois Act,” 765 ILCS 1065/1 to /9) 1 and (3) quantum meruit/implied contract/unjust enrichment. 2

Both sides have now filed summary judgment motions under Rule 56, with Nilssen seeking partial summary judgment only as to liability (and not as to damages) and with Motorola asking for a total victory as a matter of law. At this point the cross-motions are fully briefed, with both sides having complied with this District Court’s GR 12(M) and 12(N). 3 For the reasons stated in this memorandum opinion and order, Motorola’s motion is granted in part and denied in part, while Nilssen’s motion is denied.

Summary Judgment Standards

Familiar Rule 56 principles impose on a party seeking summary judgment the burden of establishing the lack of a genuine issue of material fact (Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). For that purpose this Court is “not required to draw every conceivable inference from the record — only those that are reasonable” — in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (Bank Leumi Le-Israel. B.M. v. Lee, 928 F.2d 232, 236 (7th Cir.1991) and cases cited there). Where as here cross-motions are involved, it is neces *667 sary to adopt a dual perspective — one that this Court has often described as Janus-like — that sometimes involves the denial of both motions. And as the discussion in the body of this opinion will show, that is unfortunately true here in spades. 4

What follows in the Background section is limited to an undisputed version of events. Other facts that fit better into the substantive legal discussion will be included later in this opinion.

Background

Motorola is a leading manufacturer of electronic components and devices. Robert Galvin (“Galvin”) was its Chief Executive Officer from 1959 to 1990. Galvin first learned of electronic ballast technology in the 1960s 5 — at a time when that technology was not yet mature — and looked into the possibility of developing electronic ballasts as a new Motorola business every few years thereafter (M.12(M) ¶¶ 16-17).

Nilssen, a former Motorola employee who was fired in 1972, was president and owner of Innovation Center, Inc. at all times relevant to this dispute (Nilssen Dep. 7, 33-10). In a July 12, 1982 letter to Galvin, Nilssen first approached Motorola about possible business opportunities in the electronic ballast business in which Nilssen and Motorola might join forces (M.12(M) ¶ 21). Galvin, interested in evaluating whether Nilssen had developed a technology that might finally allow Motorola to enter that industry, forwarded Nilssen’s letter to Levy Katzir (“Katzir”)— then Vice President and General Manager of Motorola’s New Enterprises Group (M.12(M) ¶¶ 22-23). Katzir and Nilssen then met on October 25, 1982, but that meeting was unproductive and the parties took no further action on any of Nilssen’s proposals (M.12(M) ¶ 24).

On February 7, 1986 Nilssen made a second pitch to Motorola, writing Gerhard Schulmeyer (“Schulmeyer”) — then General Manager of Motorola’s Automotive and Industrial Electronics Group (“Group”) — to suggest that he had “available for exclusive licensing proprietary technology that permits the development of electronic ballasts of substantially reduced cost as compared -with the least costly of presently available electronic ballasts” (N. 12(N) ¶ 25). Nilssen met with several Motorola representatives on March 18 (M.12(M) ¶ 26; N. 12(N) ¶ 26), and on *668 March 22 he followed up with a letter to Wallace Leyshon at Motorola, reiterating several of the key issues discussed at the March 18 meeting. That letter disclosed (1) Nilssen’s understanding of the key accounts in the electronic ballast industry, (2) a bill of materials for Nilssen’s prototype ballast, (3) Nilssen’s figures regarding the expected cost savings and profitability from use of his ballast and (4) Nilssen’s analysis of the energy savings to result from his technology (M.12(M) ¶28).

Nilssen and Motorola officials met several more times in 1986, but ultimately Motorola again decided not to pursue the electronic ballast business (M.12(M) ¶¶ 29-30). Nilssen wrote Galvin on November 17, 1986 criticizing that decision, and Galvin responded in a December 2 letter to Nilssen (M.12(M) ¶¶ 31-33; N. 12(N) ¶ 33):

We have been giving attention to this business opportunity for more than a score of years. We have evaluated many technologies. We recognize that the trend in the application of electronics in the ballast has been one that has grown very slowly. We do not interpret that your technology is of the nature that it will hasten this very extensively, and therefore we conclude that as a business strategy, it is not a good business for us to go into at this time, or for that matter at any time in the near future.

So we just plain have a difference of opinion with regard to business opportunity. Clearly, one such as yourself could prove our judgment wrong, but we have nevertheless made, I believe, a very objective judgment and we do not intend to enter this business.

Nilssen then wrote Galvin a December 6 letter, emphasizing that Motorola had not yet seen Nilssen’s circuits and was thus not competent to judge the adequacy of his technology (M.12(M) ¶ 34; N. 12(N) ¶ 34).

In mid-1987 Motorola’s Group began another review of Nilssen’s technology. Schulmeyer gave Phil Gunderson (“Gunderson”)— then a Group Vice-President — one of Nilssen’s earlier communications about electronic ballasts and asked him to “look into it” (N. 12(N) ¶ 35). Gunderson found Nilssen’s ideas worthy of a closer look, and on September 4, 1987 Nilssen and Motorola executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement (the “1987 Agreement”) to establish the terms under which Nilssen would provide additional confidential information to Motorola (N. 12(N) ¶ 36). Essential provisions of the 1987 Agreement included these:

* “Confidential Information” was defined as “any device, graphics, written information or information in other tangible forms that is disclosed, for evaluation purposes, to Motorola by [Nilssen] relating to [electronic ballasts] and that is marked at the time of disclosure as being ‘Confidential’ or ‘Proprietary.’ ”

* Information disclosed orally or visually and identified at the time of such disclosure as “Confidential” was to be considered as “Confidential Information” only if reduced to tangible form, marked “Confidential” and transmitted to Motorola within 30 days of such oral or visual disclosure.

* “Confidential Information” was explicitly defined to exclude “any information which: (a) Is or becomes publicly known through no wrongful act on Motorola’s part; or (b) Is, at the time of disclosure under this Agreement, already known to Motorola without restriction on disclosure; or (c) Is, or subsequently becomes, rightfully and without breach of this Agreement, in Motorola’s possession without an obligation restricting disclosure; or (d) Is independently developed by Motorola without breach of this Agreement; or (e) Is furnished to a third party by [Nilssen] without a similar restriction on the third party’s rights; or (f) Is explicitly approved for release by written authorization of [Nilssen].”

* Motorola was not to “disclose the ‘Confidential Information’ to any third party” nor to “use the ‘Confidential Information’ for any purpose” other than “evaluation purposes, which evaluation is to be com *669 pleted -within two months from [September 1,1987].” 6

From September 1987 to May 1988 Gunderson and other Motorola personnel evaluated its possible entry into the electronic business industry (M.12(M) ¶¶ 44 — 45; N. 12(N) ¶ 45). During that period Nilssen “relayed a lot of information” to Motorola employees — including Galvin — on the subject of electronic ballasts in the form of both documents and oral discussions (M.12(N) ¶ 124, 31). That information comprised both business information — including projections of market size, potential marketing opportunities and estimated manufacturing costs — and technical information as to the design of Nilssen’s electronic ballast (M.12(M) ¶ 44). Among other disclosures Nilssen made in that second category, Nilssen provided Motorola with a prototype ballast containing many of his designs, and he later designed and built an additional prototype based on a set of performance specifications identified by Gunderson (M.12(N) ¶ 127-28).

During that same September 1987 to May 1988 period, Gunderson also had Bob Elliott (“Elliott”) — a Motorola product manager and engineer — and David Bergemann (“Bergemann”) — a marketing specialist — take an independent look into the electronic ballast industry (M.12(M) ¶ 46; Gunderson Dep. 79, 110-11; Ailing Dep. 37-38). Bergemann conducted a market study and prepared a 150-page report based on information from the United States Department of Commerce and on interviews with over 27 individuals, including Motorola employees, Nilssen and outside consultant William Ailing (“Ailing”) (M.12(M) ¶ 46; M. Ex. Tab 19). In April 1988 Bergemann and Elliott prepared a “Presentation on Electronic Ballasts for Fluorescent Lamps” for the Group, detailing financial and technical objectives for Motorola’s potential entry into the electronic ballast industry (M.12(M) ¶ 47; M. Ex. Tab 21).

On May 6,1988 Fred Tucker (“Tucker”)— then Group’s Vice-President and General Manager — decided that it still would not pursue that business. Tucker instructed Gunderson to stop work on the project (M.12(M) ¶ 48). On May 20 Gunderson wrote to Nilssen to confirm that Group had decided not to enter the business, explaining that it would be “too great a departure from our core business plans” (M.12(M) ¶49). Gunderson returned to Nilssen all documents that Nilssen had marked “confidential” pursuant to the 1987 Agreement, although Nilssen now testifies that he did not then receive all of those documents (M.12(M) ¶ 50; N. 12(N) ¶ 50).

In May 1988 Nilssen wrote to Galvin and again asked him to reconsider Group’s decision (M.12(M) ¶ 54). Galvin, Gunderson and other Motorola employees then proceeded with a series of meetings to discuss Group’s analysis and the Nilssen technology (M.12(M) ¶ 55; M. 12(N) ¶ 55). In August 1988 Galvin assigned Katzir — still with the New Enterprises Group — to evaluate the electronic ballast business once again. Katzir asked that Gunderson assist him in that task, and one of the latter’s first assignments was to detail to Katzir all that he knew of the industry (M.12(M) ¶ 57; N. 12(N) ¶57; Gunderson Dep. 222). 7 Katzir and Gunderson proceeded to conduct a further evaluation of the industry’s market, although both the scope of their research and the degree to which their review was independent of Nilssen contributions are matters of dispute (M.12(M) ¶¶ 58-62; N. 12(N) ¶¶ 58-62).

After expressing concerns to Nilssen about his history of sending Motorola unsolicited material and as to his possible litigiousness, Motorola sought to modify the confidentiality agreement governing Nilssen’s disclosures (M.12(M) ¶ 63; Nilssen Dep. 347; M. Ex. Tab 30). On September 27, 1988 Nilssen, Gunderson (on behalf of Motorola) and Ailing (as an outside consultant to Motorola) executed a new Non-Disclosure Agreement (the “1988 Agreement”) 8 *670 that provided in pertinent part (M.12(M) ¶¶ 68-71; M. Ex. Tab 31):

* Nilssen agreed to disclose to Ailing on a confidential basis his pending patent applications covering inventions embodied in the prototype ballasts that Nilssen sent to Motorola. All other information disclosed to Ailing was “on a non-confidential basis and without obligation of any kind.”

* Any future confidential disclosures by Nilssen to Motorola were limited to pending patent applications, which Motorola agreed to receive in confidence. “Any other information” that Nilssen disclosed was to be “on a non-confidential basis and without obligation of any kind, unless Motorola agree[d], in writing to make an exception.” 9

* Motorola had no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information that became publicly available.

* Motorola and Nilssen “agreed to discuss the confidentiality of information that Motorola has previously received from [Nilssen] in regard to electronic ballasts,” the stated goal being “to more specifically identify what it is that should be treated as confidential.”

Ailing then completed a “Solid State Ballast Report” for Motorola on October 15, 1988. That report evaluated both technical and business issues involved in Motorola’s possible entry into the electronic ballast business, and it concluded with a recommendation that Motorola should go forward with the business using Nilssen’s technology (M.12(M) ¶ 78; M. Ex. Tab 33).

Meanwhile, in September 1988 Nilssen met with Katzir, Gunderson and Motorola attorneys to discuss possible compensation for Nilssen’s work. Katzir asked Nilssen to propose a royalty on a per ballast basis (M.12(M) ¶¶ 74-75). When Nilssen refused to do so, Katzir warned that if the parties could not agree on compensation Motorola would “go ahead without [him]” (M.12(M) ¶ 76). Gunderson followed up on that meeting with an October 3 letter to Nilssen that outlined three possibilities for Motorola’s entry into the electronic ballast industry: (1) entry without Nilssen’s participation and without his technology, (2) entry using only a limited amount of Nilssen’s technology or (3) entry with Nilssen’s participation and using substantially all of his technology (M.12(M) ¶ 77). Importantly, Gunderson’s letter also confirmed the parties’ agreement, based on a meeting that they had held the next day after signing the 1988 Agreement, as to identifying whether any of Nilssen’s previous disclosures were to be treated as confidential (M. Ex. Tab 32):

This is to confirm the various “to-do’s” that resulted from our meeting with you last Wednesday, and also to confirm some of the conclusions we reached.

Ole’s [Nilssen’s] “to-do’s”:

******

2. Review your previously-submitted documents and determine whether any of them should have been stamped as “confidential”. Our intent is to more specifically identify the information that you regard as confidential.

*671 Neither party has cited to any part of the record indicating whether or to what extent Nilssen followed up on that “to-do” — but as the later discussion reflects, his action or inaction in that respect makes no difference to the analysis.

On October 18 Nilssen wrote to Galvin, criticizing Katzir’s preference for an “arm’s length relationship whereby Motorola would merely license from [Nilssen] a few specific patents.” Nilssen argued that Katzir’s position “effectively prevents the formation of what I believe would be by far the best arrangement for Motorola as well as myself: namely, the establishment of a partnership-like relationship____ ” (M. Ex. Tab 34). On November 2 Galvin responded (M. Ex. Tab 35):

While we have not yet completed our business evaluation, and we do not plan to decide prior to year end, it is important that I communicate to you at this time Motorola’s position, so that we can jointly determine, as soon as possible, whether there is a good foundation for a mutually acceptable relationship, should we decide to pursue the Electronic Ballast business. It is important to make this determination at this time since it seems that there is a significant gap between our respective positions regarding the nature of the relationship, and the compensation level for your patents and know-how.

Galvin proposed a “framework” for “final negotiations” in which Nilssen’s compensation would be a royalty of “around 0.5% on Sales” plus “a certain minimum” for technical assistance. Finally, Galvin offered to continue discussions “if there is a positive determination that a financial relationship with you appears doable” (id.).

Nilssen responded to Galvin with a November 8 letter suggesting that Motorola’s “compensation proposed” was “unreasonably low” (M. Ex. Tab 36). Nilssen’s position was that he be paid “one third of the total value clearly attributable to [his] contribution” (id.). 10 In light of that “significant gap” between Nilssen and Motorola, Galvin sent Nilssen a November 22 letter terminating their discussions. Galvin relatedly directed Gunderson to return to Nilssen any confidential documents that Motorola had received (M.12(M) ¶ 84; M. Ex. Tab 38). Although Gunderson sent Nilssen a December 19 letter returning those confidential documents, Gunderson kept one “archive copy” for Motorola’s files (N. 12(N) ¶ 84; M. Ex. Tab 39). Nilssen was never compensated for any of his disclosures to or his work with Motorola (N.R. Mem. 12).

Once discussions with Nilssen were terminated, Ailing recommended that Motorola communicate with Stevens about his electronic ballast technology. In mid-November 1988 Stevens made a two-day presentation to Motorola executives and engineers in which he demonstrated his own “Super Ballast” — a design that had earlier been licensed to Calmont Technology Industries (M.12(M) ¶¶ 91-92). Motorola decided to enter the electronic ballast industry in February 1989, and it incorporated Lighting for that purpose on March 1, 1989 (M.12(M) ¶ 94; N. 12(N) ¶ 94; M. 12(M) R. ¶ 16). Lighting hired Stevens and executed a Licensing Agreement for the exclusive use of his electronic ballast technology on April 7, 1989 (M.12(M) ¶ 96; M. Ex. Tab 41). Stevens and other Motorola engineers participated in the improvement of electronic ballast design until December 1990, at which time Lighting completed its final design so that it could proceed to production (M.12(M) ¶ 105).

Nilssen’s Illinois Act Claim

Nilssen’s Illinois Act claim against Motorola for theft of trade secrets requires that he demonstrate (1) the existence of a protectable “trade secret” (as defined in Act § 2(d)) and (2) Motorola’s “misappropriation” (as defined in Act § 2(b)) of that trade secret (Mangren Research & Dev. Corp. v. National Chem. Co., 87 F.3d 937, 942-43 (7th Cir.1996)). Nilssen suggests that he has proved *672 each of those elements as a matter of law, while Motorola correspondingly argues that Nilssen’s claim fails as a matter of law with respect to each element. This opinion addresses the two elements in turn.

Existence of a “Trade Secret”

Act § 2(d) defines a potentially actionable “trade secret” as:

information, including but not limited to, technical or nontechnical data, a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, drawing, process, financial data, or list of actual or potential customers or suppliers, that:

(1) is sufficiently secret to derive economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known 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 or confidentiality.

As a preliminary matter, Motorola suggests that Nilssen’s failure to identify a particular trade secret is fatal to his claim. As Composite Marine Propellers. Inc. v. Van Der Woude, 962 F.2d 1263, 1266 (7th Cir.1992) (per curiam) has warned:

It is not enough to point to broad areas of technology and assert that something there must have been secret and misappropriated. The plaintiff must show concrete secrets.

Hence Nilssen cannot state a claim for trade secret protection under the Act by simply “producing long lists of general areas of information which contain unidentified trade secrets” (AMP Inc. v. Fleischhacker, 823 F.2d 1199, 1203 (7th Cir.1987)). Instead he must articulate protectable trade secrets with specificity or suffer dismissal of his claim (see Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Glass Plastics Corp., No. 81 C 3433, 1987 WL 15749, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Aug. 12)).

Motorola’s attack on that basis stems from interrogatory answers that Nilssen provided when asked to specify the precise scope of his alleged trade secrets. N. Interrog. Ans. 18 “contends that the information he provided Motorola in the 1987 and 1988 time period, and prior thereto, constituted a package of trade secret and confidential information.” On that score this Court has spoken plainly of the legal insufficiency under AMP of such a “blunderbuss statement that ‘Everything you got from us was a trade secret.’ ” (qad. inc. v. ALN Assocs., Inc., No. 88 C 2246, 1990 WL 93362, at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 20)).

And Nilssen’s other interrogatory responses similarly fail the specificity requirement. N. Interrog. Ans. 24 says:

More particularly, Nilssen’s trade secrets consisted of an extensive interwoven combination of a large number of individual elements of information relevant to the technology and business of electronic ballasts as well as to how these elements of information fitted together and how they pertained to Motorola and its prospective participation in the electronic ballast business. These individual elements of information related to and/or included a wide variety of pertinent facts, data, test results, evaluations, graphs, analyses, specifications, drawings, product samples, product requirements, product prototypes, product improvement potentials, circuit diagrams, graphs, types and identities of prospective customers, types and identities of product users, types and identities of key sources, industry standards, industry issues, industry expectations, competitors, revenue potentials, profit projections, social issues and values, patent positions and prospects, etc.; all of which were aimed such as to make Motorola sufficiently understand the significant advantages and appropriateness for it to enter the electronic ballast business.

N. Interrog. Ans. 24 goes on to identify “some” of the confidential information to which that description refers — a 35-element list (including Nilssen’s supplemental response) that occupies some five pages.

But other Nilssen submissions to Motorola and to this Court have more specifically identified his claimed trade secrets. N. Mem. 11-20 details a substantial amount of both *673 technical and nontechnical information 11 that Nilssen assertedly divulged — and that he argues was necessary for Motorola’s timely entry into the electronic ballast industry. In terms of technical information relating to the design of electronic ballasts, Nilssen suggests that he disclosed four key circuit elements to Motorola in confidence:

* A series resonant inverter driven by a half-bridge,

* Ballast output capable of driving more than two lamps in a series,

* Means for reducing the cathode heating voltage after lamp ignition and

* A slow-down capacitor used across the inverter output. 12

And N. Mem. 12-15 and 17-20 substantially narrow Nilssen’s identification of nontechnical trade secret information from the 35-element list of N. Interrog. Ans. 24 to a more articulable set. Relying primarily on the expert report of Horace DePodwin (“De-Podwin”), Nilssen identified these items of nontechnical information that he claims were — along with Nilssen’s technical knowledge of electronic ballast circuits — the “very basis for Motorola’s decision to enter the business and its entry strategy” (N. Mem.12, 17-20):

* Information concerning the reliability, cost of manufacture and efficiency of Nilssen’s ballast design, often in comparison to existing commercial electronic ballasts,

* Detailed information and analyses of the comparative performance of competitors’ ballasts, based on tests Nilssen had conducted,

* Detailed information and analyses of competitive ballasts, including their relative economic advantages and disadvantages,

* Detañed analyses of potential channels for distributing electronic bañasts,

* Information concerning the size and structure of the electronic bañast market, including the prevailing methods of distribution and generañy accepted product specifications,

* Estimates of electrical efficiencies that Motorola could expect to achieve with electronic ballast technology in the future, and

* Research and analysis concerning expected profitability following entry into the electronic ballast market and related markets.

This Court finds that level of specificity suffices to withstand Motorola’s attack, though not nearly to the extent that Nüssen would have it. Decisions such as Roton Barrier, Inc. v. Stanley Works, 79 F.3d 1112, 1117-18 (Fed. Cir.1996) (applying the Illinois Act) provide generally that a “trade secret” under that statute may include a compüation of confidential business and financial information. And Nüssen has documented each of those nontechnical items, at least to some extent, by referring to appropriate papers from the voluminous record in this ease. Simüarly, Nüssen’s identification of his claimed technical trade secrets — the four key circuit elements of his electronic ballast — is quite specific. In sum, Nüssen’s trade secrets as presently articulated are not so lacking in specificity as to require dismissal of his Illinois Act claim.

That being said, Motorola correctly urges that Nilssen’s Illinois Act claim is also limited to trade secrets that are supported by the particular documents that he has *674 specified in Ms memoranda on the current motions. As already said, Nilssen’s claimed “defimtion” of Ms trade secret package was truly amorphous throughout the discovery process. It was not until Mem. 11-20 that Nilssen even attempted to “discuss in detail” the precise scope of his trade secret claim (see also his R. Mem. 14-15). Motorola properly relied on that first-time-specified particularity when fasMoning its own submissions on the current motions, just as tMs Court has properly relied on Nilssen’s statements when decidmg these motions.

In that respect AMP, 823 F.2d at 1203 has spoken in terms of requiring an identified list of trade secrets “[p]rior to trial,” and such cases as Publishers Resource. Inc. v. Walker-Davis Publications. Inc., 762 F.2d 557, 559, 561 (7th Cir.1985), citing and quoting from this Court’s opinion in Keene Corp. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 561 F.Supp. 656, 665-66 (N.D.Ill.1982), aff'd and expressly adopted, 736 F.2d 388, 393 (7th Cir.1984) clearly teach that a motion for summary judgment is the “functional equivalent” of a trial m which it is asserted that material facts are not in dispute. In respondmg to Motorola’s motion for summary judgment on Nilssen’s Illmois Act claim, a motion that rested in critical part on Motorola’s contention that the claim should be rejected because of Nilssen’s lack of specificity in identifying Ms purported trade secrets, Nilssen stood in no position to “hold back” on any of the things that he contended met the legal requirement of such specificity. 13 Thus Nilssen’s package of alleged trade secrets will be limited at trial to the four ciremt elements of his technical claim and to those documents that are expressly identified at his Mem. 11-20 as constituting the basis of Ms nonteehMcal claims.

To return particularly to Nilssen’s assertion of nontechmcal trade secrets, Motorola also takes issue with the type of information that Nilssen now claims to be protected. As Motorola says, Illinois law does not treat “generalized confidential busmess information” as a protectable trade secret (AMP, 823 F.2d at 1204). So while Nilssen claims trade secret protection for “any proprietary compilation of information” that might have been of value to Motorola (N. Mem.23), it cannot be true that Nilssen’s legwork in identiiymg basic characteristics of the lightmg or electroMc ballast industries — for example, the size and structure of the electromc ballast market and the industry’s main corporate participants — may serve as the foundation for a claim under the Act. Sound commercial policy underlies that rule. For although Motorola may have become “smarter” about the electromc ballast industry as a result of Nilssen’s presentations regarding industry fundamentals, any grant of trade secret protection for Nilssen’s generalized business mformation would bar Motorola from entering the busmess at all if it opted against a business relationship with Nilssen (cf. Omnitech Int’l, Inc. v. Clorox Co., 11 F.3d 1316, 1324-25 (5th Cir.1994)). As this Court has suggested over a decade ago in the somewhat different context of an employee’s relationship with a former employer, that approach would require the recipient of generalized busmess information “to perform a prefrontal lobotomy on himself or herself’ to change a busmess relationsMp, thus “disserv[ing] the free market goal of maximizing available resources to- foster competition” (Fleming Sales Co. v. Bailey, 611 F.Supp. 507, 514 (N.D.Ill.1985), quoted in AMP, 823 F.2d at 1205).

That does not necessarily mean that all of Nilssen’s nontechnical information fits into that unprotected category. Instead the documents that may be considered in conjunction with Nilssen’s trade secret claim (see Appendix) will be taken mto account to the extent that they fit into the class of protected financial information recognized in such cases as Roton Barrier, 79 F.3d at 1118, or to any other extent that the case law treats such nonteehMcal materials as entitled to trade secret protection. Unfortunately the all-or-nothing nature of both sides’ presentations has made it impossible for tMs Court to be more precise — and it is not prepared to scour *675 the lengthy record in this matter on its own, in an effort to dismiss or to save individual elements of Nilssen’s claim on bases that the litigants have not themselves particularized. Thus while it may be the ease that some elements of Nilssen’s nontechnical trade secret claim are indeed susceptible to further narrowing along those lines, all that can now be said is that Motorola’s motion for a dis-positive summary judgment on that basis is denied.

As their next battle line on the Illinois Act claim, the parties differ as to what “value” (if any) is to be attributed to Nilsseris trade secrets. Act § 2(d)(1) limits trade secret protection to information that “is sufficiently secret to derive economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.” So information that is generally known within an industry is not trade secret material (Mangren Research, 87 F.3d at 942). Stampede Tool Warehouse. Inc. v. May, 272 Ill.App.3d 580, 588, 209 Ill.Dec. 281, 287, 651 N.E.2d 209, 215 (1st Dist.1995) (citation omitted) has further detailed the degree of secrecy necessary to impart “value” for a trade secret claim under the Act:

In determining whether information is a trade secret, the focus of both the common law and the ITSA [the Act] is on the secrecy of the information sought to be protected. The key to secrecy is the ease with which information can be readily duplicated without involving considerable time, effort or expense.

Significantly, then, Motorola might prove that Nilsseris alleged trade secrets were without value by demonstrating that those secrets were easily duplicable through proper means. Although a number of earlier cases had held to the contrary (see Goldberg v. Medtronic, Inc., 686 F.2d 1219, 1226-28 (7th Cir.1982); Affiliated Hosp. Prods., Inc. v. Baldwin, 57 Ill.App.3d 800, 807, 15 Ill.Dec. 528, 534, 373 N.E.2d 1000, 1006 (1st Dist.1978) (“It is no defense that the design or process in question eould have been developed independently and without resort to confidential information”)), the rule exemplified by Stampede Tool is well-established today (Computer Care v. Service Sys. Enters., Inc., 982 F.2d 1063, 1072 (7th Cir.1992)).

To have any opportunity to prevail on his Illinois Act claim, then, Nilssen must first prove that his information was sufficiently secret — in the sense of not being duplicable without “considerable time, effort or expense” — to constitute a “trade secret.” Only then does the further “misappropriation” analysis become relevant (Mangren Research, 87 F.3d at 942-43). Hamer Holding Group. Inc. v. Elmore, 202 Ill.App.3d 994, 1011-12,148 Ill.Dec. 310, 321-22, 560 N.E.2d 907, 918-19 (1st Dist.1990) (citations omitted) so held when it visited the issue as a matter of statutory construction:

Plaintiff points out that, by eliminating from the definition of “trade secret” the qualifying clause “not being readily ascertainable by proper means by others,” the drafters of the Act intended to eliminate the defense available under the Uniform Act that the information could be developed legally through other means. Plaintiffs argument is unpersuasive, however, because the key to “secrecy” is the ease with which information can be developed through other proper means: if the information can be readily duplicated without involving considerable time, effort or expense, then it is not secret. Conversely, information which can be duplicated only by an expensive and time-consuming method of reverse engineering, for instance, could be secret, and the ability to 'duplicate it would not constitute a defense. For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the trial court and affirm its holding that since plaintiffs customer list could be easily duplicated, it does not qualify as a “trade secret” under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act.

In light of those standards, the existence of a trade secret under the Act is ordinarily a question of fact, for that inquiry necessarily involves the “factual question of whether the ‘secrecy’ of the information has been maintained and the ease or difficulty of obtaining the information from other sources” (2 Gregory Upchurch, Intellectual Property Litigation Guide: Patents & Trade Secrets *676 § 16.02, at 16-17 to 16-18 (1996)). What follows is a statement of the relevant facts supporting each party’s motion for summary judgment on that basis, from which — when viewed through the alternate lenses required for such cross-motions — it becomes apparent that this Court cannot decide as a matter of law whether or not Nilsseris alleged trade secrets were of sufficient “secrecy” to be of “value” under the Act.

In the light most favorable to Motorola, each of the four technical elements of electronic ballasts that Nilssen now claims as a trade secret was either known in the industry or used in commercially available ballasts (or both) before Nilsseris 1988 disclosure to Motorola. Specifically with regard to each element:

* Many participants in the electronic ballast industry knew before 1988 that a half-bridge inverter driving a series resonant circuit could be used in a ballast (Clegg Dep. at 46). That configuration was disclosed in at least five issued patents 14 (two issued to Nilssen) and was used in commercially available ballasts produced by Fyrnetics and several foreign manufacturers (N. 12(N) ¶ 123; Clegg Report ¶ 16; Lesea Report ¶¶ III,A,1-2).

* In 1988 “everybody under the sun” was attempting to create a ballast capable of driving more than two lamps in a series (Clegg Dep. 150). That configuration was disclosed in at least three patents before 1988 and was used in ballasts sold by XO Industries and Stevens Luminoptics (Lesea Report ¶¶ III,C,1-2).

* As for the concept of reducing cathode heating voltage after lamp ignition, that was so well known in the electronic ballast industry that it had its own name: the “modified rapid start method” (Clegg Dep. 197). That idea was disclosed in at least seven pre-1988 patents and was available in ballasts sold by XO Industries and several foreign manufacturers (Lesea Report ¶¶ III,D,1-2).

* Finally, The technique of using a slowdown capacitor across the inverter output was described in a patent issued to Nilssen in 1987 (Clegg Dep. at 231-32). And Fyrnetics was manufacturing an electronic ballast using that configuration before 1988 (Nilssen Dep. 685).

In the light most favorable to Nilssen, though, each of the four circuit elements was either unknown or underdeveloped and commercially infeasible at the time that Nilssen introduced them to Motorola. Here are the particulars:

* Commercial use of a half-bridge inverter to drive a series resonant circuit was rare as of late 1988 (Clegg Report ¶ 23). Fyrnetics was the only commercial manufacturer of electronic ballasts using series resonant inverter circuits, and that company suffered from high failure rates and a correspondingly small market share of 5% to 8% (id. ¶ 19). Only two manufacturers had begun to establish electronic ballasts as reliable (in the face of high market skepticism): Triad/Utrad and EBT, both of whom used parallel resonant inverters (id. ¶ 20).

* As of late 1988 there were no commercially available electronic ballasts driving more than two lamps in a series (Clegg Report ¶ 29). That fact is confirmed in an early draft of Ailing’s Solid State Ballast Report (N. Ex. Tab 14), as well as in a December 14, 1990 speech by Katzir praising Motorola’s three- and four-lamp ballasts (N. Ex. Tab 30). So while other firms may earlier have been attempting to drive three or four lamps in a series, Lighting was the first company actually to do so (id).

* As Clegg attests, “the commercial availability in late 1988 of electronic ballasts including means of reducing the heating voltage across the cathodes of the lamps after lamp ignition was highly unusual if not entirely non-existent” (Clegg Report ¶38). Ailing’s Solid State Ballast Report demonstrates that the modified rapid start technique was used by Nilssen *677 alone (N. 12(M) ¶ 131; N. Ex. Tab 14, Table 1-2).

* Clegg also says that “[i]n late 1988, the commercial use of a slow-down capacitor across the inverter output to improve ballast performance was either unusual or entirely unknown in the electronic ballast industry” (Clegg Report 146). Fyrnetics, the only firm th