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

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

Jeme A Brelin  wrote:
>I don't see anything wrong with a person reverse-engineering something
>that is described as incredibly difficult in a very short time and
>claiming in court, "I can show it was reverse engineered, but it is a
>newly developed process that I maintain as a trade secret."

You seem to be agreeing with me.  The effort required to reverse-engineer
something is a factual matter.

I don't understand your objection.  If reverse-engineering is possible,
as we believe to be the case, then this should be demonstrable in court.
If the legal test itself is unfavorable, that's much more challenging to
work around.

You seem to lack faith that the judicial process will be able to determine
the facts of the matter here.  I guess that I am more optimistic about that.

(As for your example, I did not find it convincing.  You are bringing up
obscure cases to try to justify a sweeping conclusion.  And I do not even
believe that in your obscure case it would be hard to demonstrate the
capability to easily reverse-engineer.  I believe with some ingenuity it
would be straightforward to demonstrate this in court.)