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

["Ballowe, Charles" <CBallowe(at)usg.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] Support for Eldred Vs Ashcroft in Brunner.
> 
> 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.
>
The purpose of copyright an patent laws is to encourage disclosure
of ideas to further science and the useful arts. Trade secret 
status offers no protection to companies who choose to go that 
route other than protection against theft. Copyright has little
to do with trade secrets. Trade secrets are closer to things which
might be patentable.

And the term for trade secrets is not unlimited, it is until 
somebody figures it out independantly. When somebody keeps something
as a trade secret they are betting that it won't be discovered 
before a patent on the technology would. Sometimes they're wrong,
but the choice is always theirs to make.

-Charles Ballowe