Stutz Motor Car of America, Inc., an automotive manufacturer, received a patent in 1986 for a “shock absorbing air bladder” for use in footwear. However, Stutz never manufactured a shoe with this innovation. In 1989, Reebok began producing the PUMP, a very successful line of athletic shoes with an air bladder different in design but similar in concept to Stutz’s invention. Because Reebok’s design was not sufficiently similar to Stutz’s to constitute patent infringement, Stutz sued instead for trade secret misappropriation. Should Stutz prevail on its misappropriation claim? Why, or why not?