Shoplyfter Hazel Moore Case No 7906253 S Patched 【Edge】

“PATCH ACCEPTED – AUTHORIZATION GRANTED.” “WARNING: ACTIVATION WILL RECONFIGURE GRID NODE 37. CONFIRM?”

| Issue | ShopLyfter’s Position | Moore’s Position | |-------|----------------------|------------------| | | The algorithm, data‑training methodology, and source code are “secret” and have economic value; misappropriation occurred when Moore transferred them to Nimbus. | The technology is generic AI‑based recommendation logic , widely used in the industry; no reasonable steps were taken to keep it secret. | | Non‑Compete Enforceability | The clause is a legitimate protectable interest, narrowly tailored to California, and was signed knowingly. | California voids non‑competes except for limited circumstances (e.g., sale of goodwill); thus the clause is void and unenforceable . | | “Patched” Doctrine | The “patch” is a post‑hoc fix that does not erase the initial misappropriation; the injunction should remain. | The patches effectively remove the proprietary elements, making the product distinct; continuing the injunction would be overbroad . | | Damages & Injunctive Relief | Seeks injunctive relief , compensatory damages , and disgorgement of profits derived from the misappropriated code. | Argues that damages are speculative , and the injunction stifles competition ; seeks nominal damages only. | shoplyfter hazel moore case no 7906253 s patched

She found the patch but ordered additional hardware retrofits because the sensor hardware still had a marginal tolerance that could be triggered under extreme ambient conditions (e.g., high‑altitude, low‑air‑flow environments). “PATCH ACCEPTED – AUTHORIZATION GRANTED

Key precedent : , 541 U.S. 36 (2004) emphasizes that testimonial statements must be subject to cross‑examination. The Supreme Court has not directly addressed algorithmic evidence , leaving lower courts to analogize to scientific expert testimony under Daubert standards. | | Non‑Compete Enforceability | The clause is

Key precedent : , 734 F.3d 514 (7th Cir. 2014)—the Seventh Circuit permitted admission of a digitally restored audio file where the restoration process was fully disclosed and the original file remained available for verification. The Pappas test focuses on transparency and verifiability , not on absolute fidelity.