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

Re: [dvd-discuss] DeCSS - the saga continues

Tom wrote:

>On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 08:01:47AM +0100, Tom wrote:
>>On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 06:39:41PM -0800, James S. Tyre wrote:
>>>2. Whether the issuance of a preliminary injunction to
>>>stop the dissemination on the Internet of a computer program that
>>>knowingly contains stolen trade secrets violates the First Amendment."
>>which they still have to prove. I for one, wasn't aware of either Jon
>>nor the "trade secret" status before they hit me with their laughable
>>injunction attempt.
>I guess I should explain. In my book, before they even get to ASK for
>an injunction, there's a LOT of things they have to prove or show to be
>reasonably likely the case:
>- That there was a trade secret in the 1st place. This is the only
>  thing I believe they have done.
In their paper, they refer to it as "an acknowledged trade secret" which 
sounds a lot like "an un-secret secret."

As in, "That thing that you read was a secret." I think that we can 
agree that they HAD a trade secret. I believe that this and the 2600 
case can be summarized as:

1) Present tense is virtually as good as past tense.
2) Verbs are virtually as  good as actions.
3) Virtual is as good as real.

Please be careful in zebra crossings,