In ABBA Rubber Co. v. Seaquist (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1, the trial court's minute order did not mention a bond. (ABBA Rubber, supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at p. 9.) After issuing the minute order, the trial court considered the plaintiff's proposed preliminary injunction and the defendants' objections, which raised the lack of a bond. The preliminary injunction signed by the court required the plaintiff to post a $ 1,000 bond. (Ibid.) The plaintiff argued that the failure to raise the issue of the bond prior to the trial court's issuance of its minute order waived the objection. (Id. at p. 10.) Furthermore, when the appellate court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the defendants had waived the right to challenge the bond, the court explicitly stated that the plaintiff had made the argument without authority. (Ibid.) The appellate court's reference to the plaintiff's failure to provide authority functions as a warning to practitioners and other courts concerning the narrow scope of the issues actually decided in that case. Thus, ABBA Rubber does not stand for the proposition that a party may never waive the injunction bond requirement of section 529. Instead, it stands for the narrower proposition that an appellate court will not find as a matter of law that a restrained party waives its statutory right to a bond by failing to affirmatively request it when neither the moving party nor the court has raised the topic prior to the trial court's ruling. The court explained when a customer list derives value from not being generally known. It was noted that, "By itself, knowledge of the identities of the businesses which buy from a particular provider of goods or services is of no particular value to that provider's competitors. However, that information is valuable to those competitors if it indicates to them a fact which they previously did not know: that those businesses use the goods or services which the competitors sell." (ABBA Rubber Co., supra, 235 Cal. App. 3d at page 19.) The plaintiff's president testified, "'that one of the most difficult parts of the plaintiff's job is to determine which companies, of all the businesses in the United States, need rubber rollers . . . . Customers are not readily recognizable or identifiable, and the process which brings to light the names of potential customers is . . . expensive and time consuming.' 'The customer lists represent a winnowing down from a generalized list of companies which may utilize rubber rollers or rubber molded products to a valuable and discrete listing of a more limited number of existing and potential customers. Those lists are an enormously valuable resource to the plaintiff, as well as to any competitor. Indeed, any competitor . . . could not duplicate those lists without similar years of effort and expense.'" (ABBA Rubber Co., supra, 235 Cal. App. 3d at page 20.)