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

Re: [dvd-discuss] FW: SJ MercuryNews, Ruling a blow for DVD indus try (11-02-2001) (Emailing: dvdsuit02.htm)

Yes. I think that's a true danger. What is particulary gauling about the 
DVDCCA is their argument that "they had it therefore they stole it!" and 
that the lower court didn't say.....give me proof...show me evidence 
before putting ANY injunction. If the DVDCCA can't provide EVIDENCE, the 
court should not even bother listening to them....although I do realize 
that shrinkwrap licenses did play a part in the argument.

"D. C. Sessions" <dcs@lumbercartel.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
11/05/01 10:48 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] FW: SJ MercuryNews, Ruling a blow for DVD indus try 
(11-02-2001) (Emailing: dvdsuit02.htm)

On Monday 05 November 2001 11:13, you wrote:
> The thing that this murky news article neglects to mention is that trade
> secret protection is only from those who have the obligation to keep
> the secret but do not.  And perhaps those who can be shown to have
> directly stolen the secret from the owners (i.e. you break in to the 
> in Atlanta to aquire the Coca Cola recipie, but you leave your 
> behind).
> Independant discovery of a process that somebody else considers to
> be "their secret" is _not_ legally prohibited.


Keep your eye out for "trade secret" legislation at the Federal level
that will effectively rule out the independent-discovery defense and
provide patent-like "intellectual property" with neither the expiration 
originality requirements of patents.

| I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
+----------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+