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

Re: [dvd-discuss] CA Supreme Court hears Pavlovich Jurisdiction Challenge in DVDCCA case

Part correct, part not.

1.  Trade secrecy law is primarily a state matter, not a federal matter.

2.  Like most states, CA has adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, with 
some modifications.  (Uniform Acts are proposed by a national body, the 
idea being to bring consistency to the law of the various states.  Each 
state is free to adopt a uniform act in whole, in part, or not at all, as 
the state legislature may see fit.)

3.  At least to my knowledge, the CA adoption of the UTSA is not more 
protective of trade secrets than that of most other states.  As 
specifically applicable here, the CA version of the UTSA - Cal. Civil Code 
sections 3426 et seq. - specifically provides that there is liability only 
if a trade secret is acquired through an improper means, and that reverse 
engineering is not an improper means:

3426.1.  As used in this title, unless the context requires
    (a) "Improper means" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation,
breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or
espionage through electronic or other means.  Reverse engineering or
independent derivation alone shall not be considered improper means.

    (b) "Misappropriation" means:
    (1) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows
or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper
means; or
    (2) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express
or implied consent by a person who:
    (A) Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret;
    (B) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know
that his or her knowledge of the trade secret was:
    (i) Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper
means to acquire it;
    (ii) Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to
maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
    (iii) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the
person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
    (C) Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had
reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it
had been acquired by accident or mistake.

At 03:37 PM 9/8/2002 -0400, Joshua Stratton wrote:
>Indeed they have. Partially this is because IIRC Congress hasn't enacted
>any legislation. Trade secrets are pretty much the domain of the states.
>California's t.s. laws are broader than those of a lot of other states
>though, again IIRC.
>On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Jeremy Erwin wrote:
> > Not to play devil's advocate here, but it is possible that California
> > has enacted much broader protections for trade secrets than the U.S
> > Congress.

James S. Tyre                               mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com
Law Offices of James S. Tyre          310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512               Culver City, CA 90230-4969
Co-founder, The Censorware Project             http://censorware.net