Re: [dvd-discuss] DeCSS - the saga continues

[mickey <mickeym(at)mindspring.com>]

Tom wrote:

>On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 08:01:47AM +0100, Tom wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 06:39:41PM -0800, James S. Tyre wrote:
>>
>>>2. Whether the issuance of a preliminary injunction to
>>>stop the dissemination on the Internet of a computer program that
>>>knowingly contains stolen trade secrets violates the First Amendment."
>>>
>>which they still have to prove. I for one, wasn't aware of either Jon
>>nor the "trade secret" status before they hit me with their laughable
>>injunction attempt.
>>
>
>I guess I should explain. In my book, before they even get to ASK for
>an injunction, there's a LOT of things they have to prove or show to be
>reasonably likely the case:
>
>- That there was a trade secret in the 1st place. This is the only
>  thing I believe they have done.
>  
>
In their paper, they refer to it as "an acknowledged trade secret" which 
sounds a lot like "an un-secret secret."

As in, "That thing that you read was a secret." I think that we can 
agree that they HAD a trade secret. I believe that this and the 2600 
case can be summarized as:

1) Present tense is virtually as good as past tense.
2) Verbs are virtually as  good as actions.
3) Virtual is as good as real.

Please be careful in zebra crossings,
mickeym