[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

You're right that trade secret and copyright are mutually exclusive 
but the notion that an injunction against disclosing a trade secret 
can be forever goes a bit too far. Especially when coupled with 
language that the person should have known or expected to 
know...as the DVDCCA argued.

Of course apply this to software. I have trade secret software. I 
have copyrighted software and if software patents are allowed, Look 
what you've got. 20yrs on some pieces. 120yrs on others and 
forever on others. What a mess! So why should software merit that?

From:           	"Kroll, Dave" <Dave_Kroll@cargilldow.com>
To:             	"'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Support for Eldred Vs Ashcroft in Brunner.
Date sent:      	Sun, 4 Nov 2001 08:29:03 -0600 
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 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.