1994) was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, which had decided that Rivendell had failed to establish the existence of a trade secret in its customized computer software system, "Quote Screen", which was used to quote lumber prices to customers.

[2] It was then determined by Georgia-Pacific, which Rivendell did not dispute, that the two Quote Screen systems only had two common attributes: bundle sizes and board-footage conversions.

The court wrote, "It would make little sense to allow individuals to throw veils of secrecy around the most common things, all in an attempt to establish their claim to a trade secret and then to prohibit others from appropriating their 'secret.'

[2][3] On June 30, 1994, the Appellate Court reversed the 1993 decision on the grounds that Rivendell's trade secret could consist of a combination of elements in the public domain.

They state that the "unified process, design and operation of which, in unique combination", can in fact afford, "a competitive advantage and is a protectable secret".

[1] These cases represent the complex issues that may arise in asserting a trade secret in software that merely uniquely combines public domain elements.