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

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

It's more than that. The DVDCCA claims that the possession of the secret 
means that one must have stolen it. What's more even if I have a DVDCCA 
approved package with the "Confidential Don't open it Return it to DVDCCA 
immediately without opening it or BAAADDDD things will happen to you" it 
doesn't prove that I misappropriated it. Was it lost? Mishandled? Left out 
in the street? While it is unethical to use trade secrets for commercial 
advantage, even when one has acquired them accidently, the presumption of 
the law should not be that it is illegal apriori. The DVDCCA should have 
been required to show the string of police reports and information that 
shows they lost the secret. OTherwise, it's RE. If Hoy puts it in a filing 
in a public document made available to the public it's his own fault and 
the courts should not have helped him try to put the toothpaste back into 
the tube. 

Yeah...it's amazing how well thought out the foundations of the 
Constitution were.....




"Ballowe, Charles" <CBallowe@usg.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
11/05/01 01:41 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Bunner wins DeCSS trade secret appeal


While the exact expression of the idea might be copyright, but
copyright doesn't apply to the idea itself. If they published a
document containing the CSS algorithm to the general public,
redistribution of that document would be prevented, but a person
could repackage the concepts and present a new document.

The only way to protect the idea is to patent it, but then they
lose control after 20 years. Instead of protecting it, they 
tried to hide it and somebody found it. oops...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Bunner wins DeCSS trade secret appeal
> 
> 
> The problem with the concept that it's copyrighted as soon as it is 
> written down is that nobody know that. In physics if it can't 
> be observed 
> it isn't "physical". Ditto for copyright.  It's also hard to 
> argue that 
> the full range of copyright protection should be extended to private 
> scribblings. Now maybe a use for the UTSA would be to 
> prosecute somebody 
> who steals a manuscript using it.
> 
> As for published.....well lets see. It has been disseminated 
> to a small 
> number of people and the DVD-discuss archive WAS being made 
> available on 
> the Internet at OPENLAW.ORG. Granted it didn't get distribution in a 
> bookstore by a commeercial publisher but what more does it 
> need. A book 
> run is about 2500 copies I think. How many hits does open law 
> get daily? I 
> guess the question is that even though it's not deposited 
> with the office, 
> it would seem to be published.
>