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

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

Hash: SHA1

I wonder if CA's anti-SLAPP law mightn't be used to solve this part...

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Tom wrote:

>On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 12:41:08PM -0700, James S. Tyre wrote:
>> 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:
>so the DVDCCA has an unwinnable case, unless their lawyers are
>extremely stupid (or just greedy), they know it - and still they push
>on. why? might it be that as long as the case is undecided, an
>atmosphere of uncertainty keeps their monopoly alive?

- -- 
<a mailto:galt@inconnu.isu.edu>Who is John Galt?</a>

Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
	-- Ferenc Mantfeld
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76