This was discussed in the tipster's MacRumors farewell thread [1]. I'm not a lawyer to understand the context of it, but someone quoted:
> California Trade Secrets Act (2022) sections 3426 to 3426.11 of the California Civil Code
> (a) "Improper means" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means. Reverse engineering or independent derivation alone shall not be considered improper means.
> (b) "Misappropriation" means:
> (1) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or(2) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who A) Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or(B) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his or her knowledge of the trade secret was i) Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it;(ii) Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or(iii) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or(C) Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.
It sounds to me like that would incriminate the tipster as well, if the leaked information counts as a trade secret at least, regardless of whether the former employee knew about it or not.
> California Trade Secrets Act (2022) sections 3426 to 3426.11 of the California Civil Code
> (a) "Improper means" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means. Reverse engineering or independent derivation alone shall not be considered improper means.
> (b) "Misappropriation" means:
> (1) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or(2) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who A) Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or(B) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his or her knowledge of the trade secret was i) Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it;(ii) Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or(iii) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or(C) Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.
It sounds to me like that would incriminate the tipster as well, if the leaked information counts as a trade secret at least, regardless of whether the former employee knew about it or not.
[1] https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/farewell-message.238918...