RE: [dvd-discuss] Support for Eldred Vs Ashcroft in Brunner.

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

My appologies. My writing was awful. I did not mean that trade secret is 
subordinate but if I read this correctly the court is suggesting that the 
durations of legal protection for a disclosed trade secret should NOT be 
for unlimited times since the copyright is in the public good but the 
ownership of a trade secret is not. The key idea is the public good. A 
trade secret is merely for private gain (BTW-benefits to the economy are 
irrelevant. Nobody says you have to cook your chicken as the Colonel 
did...well actually KFC doesn't anymore either!) and so should not provide 
better protection than copyright, patent, or trademark.

WRT to Eldred vs. Ashcroft...albeit a minor point but a "compromised" 
trade secret enjoys unlimited times via UTSA and is not in the public 
interest but copyright must be limited. That seems to be a contradiction. 
Of course, this is a weak argument because Mary Bono's answer is "FOREVER 
less a day". Maybe the more proper place for that argumnet is in Brunner 
and a challenge to the UTSA being overbroad in remedies that upset the 
proper balance.




Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
11/05/01 10:09 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Support for Eldred Vs Ashcroft in Brunner.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 2:42 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] Support for Eldred Vs Ashcroft in Brunner.
> 
> 
> Read this one...
> 
> "Third, the statutory prohibition on disclosures of trade 
> secrets is of infinite duration rather than "for limited 
> Times." While the limited period of copyright protection
> authorized by the United States Constitution ensures that 
> copyrighted material will eventually pass into the public 
> domain, thereby serving the public interest by increasing
> its availability to the general public, the UTSA bars 
> disclosure of a trade secret for a potentially infinite 
> period of time, thereby ensuring that the trade secret will 
> never be disclosed to the general public."
> 
> If I read this right. Trade secrets are subordinate to 
> copyright. AN unlimited term for trade secrets 
> contradicts limited terms for copyright. So a subordinate 
> has powers exceeding as superior. Now if that's not a 
> contradiction I don't know what is.
> 

How are trade secrets subordinate?  They are orthagonal
and mutually exclusive.

You can not claim trade secret status if you publish,
and you can not claim copyright if you do not publish.

IOW -- if you publish, you get certain rights protected
for you by the government, but only for a limited time. 
If you do not publish, you get protection for as long
as you (yourself) can manage to protected it.  The one
protection the gov't extends to trade secret is that if
someone who is "in" on the secret w/ the obligation to 
keep it breaks that obligation, they can be prosecuted.



-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!