Jane Street Group, LLC v. Millennium Management LLC

<p>Appeal, No. 119, Oct. T., 1912, by defendants, from decree of C. P. Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1911, No. 710, on bill in equity in case of 'Maebeth-Evans Glass Company v. Harry A. Schnelbach and Jefferson Glass Company.</p> <p>Bill in equity for an injunction.</p> <p>Shafer, J., found the facts to be as follows:</p> <p>First. The Maebeth-Evans Glass Company was incorporated in 1899,. and has been principally engaged since that time in the manufacture and sale of glassware for illuminating, purposes. Mr. George A. Macbeth has been president of the company since its organization, and has been engaged in the manufacture of glass since about 1872.</p> <p>. , Second. At the time of the formation of the MaebethEvans. Glass Company the defendant Harry Schnelbach was in the employ of the Thomas Evans Glass Company, one of the constituent companies out of which the plaintiff company was formed, and he thereupon entered into the employ of the plaintiff company and remained in its employ until about the beginning of the year 1910, being employed, as a factory superintendent.</p> <p>Third. Beginning in the year 1900 or soon thereafter George A. Macbeth on behalf of the plaintiff company began a series of investigations and experiments for the purpose of discovering a method of making a better semi-translucent glass for illuminating purposes than those theretofore known. The defect in the glass which he .endeavored to remedy was that the means taken to make it more or less opaque also prevented the diffusion of light through it, and the object was to make a glass which should appear to be opaque and yet should allow the light to be diffused through it. For this purpose Mr. Macbeth consulted the literature on glass-making and consulted with Mr. Nash of the Tiffany works and had him make experiments, but without success. He then employed a chemist, Mr. Silverman, to investigate the matter and make experiments, about September of 1902, and these experiments were continued to the su

Torts—Elements of tortious interference with contract—Establishing lack of justification element in tort of tortious interference with contract—Factors in determining whether an actor has acted improperly in intentionally interfering with a contract or prospective contract of another—Establishment of privilege of fair competition will defeat claim of tortious interference with contract, when—Listings of names, addresses, or telephone numbers that have not been published or disseminated constitute trade secrets, when—Whether particular knowledge or process is a trade secret is a question of fact determined by trier of fact upon greater weight of the evidence.