economic value of that property right lies in the competitive advantage over others that [the trade secret holder] enjoys by virtue of its exclusive access to the data, and disclosure or use by others of the data would destroy that competitive edge.” Id. at 1012, 104 S.Ct. 2862. Core provided generally undisputed evidence that its competitive position has been significantly eroded, both as to loss of customers to Spectrum, and as to price erosion. Texas precedent is that the threatened disclosure or use of the trade secrets of another constitutes irreparable injury as a matter of law. IAC, Ltd., 160 S.W.3d at 200 (“The threatened disclosure of trade secrets constitutes irreparable injury as a matter of law.”); Williams v. Compressor Eng’g Corp., 704 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Tex. App.1986) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the record here convinces us that
holding that movant must demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction holding that a plaintiff must demonstrate that in the absence of an injunction irreparable injury is likely and not merely a possibility holding that potential loss of a contract constitutes irreparable injury holding that where the uncontradicted evidence shows that a former employee is working for a direct competitor no finding of irreparable injury is necessary to support a permanent injunction to protect trade secrets because irreparable injury is established as a matter of law holding that there could be no presumption of irreparable harm based on a statutory violation yet finding that ejnvironmental injury by its nature can seldom be adequately remedied by money damages and is often permanent or at least of long duration ie irreparable if such injury is sufficiently likely  the balance of harms will usually favor issuance of the injunction to protect the environment