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

["Kroll, Dave" <Dave_Kroll(at)cargilldow.com>]

That doesn't seem right.  Trade secrets shouldn't be subordinate to
copyright,
they should be independent of copyright.  Yes, you can keep a trade secret
for
infinite time if you protect it, but once it is known by someone who didn't
have a
duty to protect it or know it was stolen, it's public domain.  

The contradiction (as others have stated again and again) is that one is
able 
to claim something is both copyrighted and a trade secret.


David Kroll

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net] 
Sent:	Saturday, November 03, 2001 4:42 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.