Re: [dvd-discuss] Bunner wins DeCSS trade secret appeal

[Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor(at)yahoo.com>]

If we are going to discuss this case, perhaps someone could post it so that we
can see how the judge reasoned. I would suspect that NC has adopted the UTSA
(unless this case is brought under non-standard trade secret laws), but that
question is surely answered in the opinion.

I think it is valid to cite cases from other state's jurisdictions when the
other state has adopted the same exact law. It isn't controlling, but I would
think it would be influential. I think it does happen that different states
have different common law even where the black letter law is identical.

All this case really says is that publishing object code does not destroy the
trade secrets status. If somebody actually does reverse engineer, that would
destroy the trade secret status, but the fact that it is possible to retrieve
the ideas that way does not mean that people who get them by old fashion
misappropriation get off because of that unpersued possibility. I think there
are plenty of UTSA cases that say the mere possibility of reverse enginnering
doesn't destroy the trade secret status.

My guess is that most courts would reject arguements that trade secrets for
source code are destroyed by the publication of the binary.

--- Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org> wrote:

> > Barr-Mullin, Inc. v. Browning, 108 N.C. App. 590, 424 S.E.2d 226 (1993).

> I doubt anybody here would like that decision, but fortunately for
> those of us in California (where a lot of the big technology law cases
> seem to originate, and where the current DVD trade secret theory is
> being argued), that's North Carolina.
> 
> Does North Carolina have UTSA legislation?




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com