RE: [dvd-discuss] Matt Pavlovich WINS in Cal. Supreme Court

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 26 Nov 2002 at 12:04, Tim Neu wrote:

Date sent:      	Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:04:46 -0600 (CST)
From:           	Tim Neu <tim@tneu.visi.com>
To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Copies to:      	<owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Matt Pavlovich WINS in Cal. Supreme Court
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Richard Hartman wrote:
> 
> > Whether he can be compelled or not is moot, since (if I read
> > that ruling correctly) he already _has_ said as much.  Once
> > you have spoken, you no longer have that 5th amendment protection,
> > right?
> >
> > [blockquote]
> > At the time LiVid posted DeCSS, Pavlovich knew that DeCSS "was derived from
> > CSS algorithms" and that reverse engineering these algorithms was probably
> > illegal. [/blockquote]
> >
> > Now, as far as I am concerned reverse engineering is
> > _not_ probably illegal, but I am speaking about Pavlovich's
> > actions under the circumstances as he believed them to be.
> > He believed it to be illegal, but went ahead anyway.  This
> > shows intent.
> 
> Intent to do what?  If I am under the mistaken impression that as a
> customer, it is illegal for me to remove my matteress tag - but I go ahead
> and do it anyway, what specific law have I shown intent to violate?
> 
> Obvious answer:  One that doesn't exist.  (or more accurately, doesn't
> apply to me).
> 
> You could say that the individual had little respect for their
> understanding of the law, or maybe even a tendency towards lawlessness.
> These may be reflect upon a persons character, but they are not crimes.
> 
> If the revese engineering was legal (which all known evidence suggests),
> what Pavlovich believed he was doing has no bearing on the matter.
> 
> It's the corralary to the old addage:  Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
> 
> Being of the mistaken impression that you are violating a law does not
> make you any less innocent.   Either a crime has been commited or it
> hasn't.  (IMHO)


And FINDING a trade secret is no crime either. Neither is passing it on even if 
you KNOW it's a trade secret. Matt was under NO contractual obligation to 
protect it. That's what's lost in all the legal sparing. The bargain is tell 
all and get legal protection via copyright or patent or keep it a secret and 
get NONE. What's gotten lost in the trade secret laws is that a trade secret is 
a private contractual matter. 

> 
> > ... of course, at that point the defense should characterize
> > this as a form of protest, which might be protection . . .
> >
> > Nonetheless, the situation -- as he himself believed it
> > to be -- was one where he was intentionally furthering
> > an illegal act. (Which was really all I was saying ...)
> 
> But if he was wrong about the situation, how would his intent matter?
> 
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> ______         _ __                          Military Intelligence
>   /           ' )  )        -KC0LQL-         Honest Politician
>  / o ______    /  / _  . .                   Intellectual Property
> / <_/ / / <   /  (_</_(_/_  -- tneu@visi.com / http://www.visi.com/~tneu --
>