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

["D. C. Sessions" <dcs(at)lumbercartel.com>]

On Sun, 2002-09-08 at 12:37, 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.

Which in turn is because trade secrets have been handled as a matter of
contract law, and in contract law the matter of personal jurisdiction
is pretty clear: the parties have unambiguously availed themselves of
the State in question and usually specified its jurisdiction in the
contract itself.

This is a case of California reaching out to touch someone who
had *not* made conscious effort to involve California per se.
Thus, we're once again asking whether New York could go after
P. next, then Florida, etc.

> 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.
> 
-- 
| The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. |
| Because the slow, feeble old codgers like me cheat.                |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+