Yes, but they're arguing in the letter that the work is _also_ disclosing information that would allow their competitors to know how DisplayLink works. You can't have it both ways.
2. I'm not saying their arguments are valid. It's a demand letter with multiple claims. There's many reasons it might be an invalid argument but listing more than one grievance and/or not explaining them in detail are not some of those reasons.
if I patent a microwave and specify exactly how it works, that part can't be trade secret
BUT if my trade secret is on using ruby diamond for deluxe premium microwave lazor THAT isn't specified on the patent, well that be a trade secret
but trade secret CAN ONLY BE PUNISHED IF someone insider leaks the info -- not much can be done if some junk collector finds out about the ruby stuff
But lawyers are prone to using scary phrasing, even if that phrasing has no bite, and are free to write strongly-worded letters.
"I see that you've been publishing the privately-held, trade secret tomato processing technique I developed -- on the Internet! Now, tomato processors everywhere can see it! I'm really pissed! I demand that you stop doing this immediately! In fact, if you want a full enumeration of whar I really think about the terrible things you're doing, then I further demand that you pay me $25,000 for that effort!"
...it's got no bite, but it's a letter. It can be drafted and sent.
(It can also be ignored upon receipt.)
coca-cola's coca is the coca as in cocaine (literally)
so I heard DEA has some really strict controls on that coca producing facility (so it doesn't produce cocaine)
Coca-Cola buys spent coca remains, after they've had the party powder components extracted from them. This product is not particularly restricted.
UNLESS the first buyer suddenly pops up and recites the EULA for them and have the agreement got right