dissenting in part and concurring in part.
I concur in all that the majority opinion says with the exception of its conclusion that there is some basis for injunctive relief as to James Franke.
There is, in my view, a substantial difference between the agreement made by Franke and that made by Method. Franke agreed, in pertinent part, as follows:
"(c) During the one-year period immediately following termination of my employment with HONEYWELL, I will neither directly nor indirectly render services to a business, owned solely by myself or jointly with others, or to any other person, corporation, or other organization, involving the solicitation, sale, or performance of inspection, servicing, maintenance or repair services relating to temperature control, air conditioning, heating, ventilating or other environmental control equipment systems requiring the use of HONEYWELL proprietary information to or at any facilities of any existing CONTRACT SERVICE CUSTOMER of the HONEYWELL Building Services Division location at which my employment with Honeywell terminates." Record at 311.
This agreement precludes Franke's activity only if it requires the use of proprietary information. On the other hand, Method's agreement precluded him from competition without regard to whether such competition involved proprietary information.
The majority opinion invalidates the preliminary injunction with reference to the attempted preclusion of use of proprietary information. The underpinning for any appropriate injunctive relief against Franke is therefore destroyed.
*1095For this reason I would reverse the judgment as to James Franke. I otherwise concur in the majority opinion.