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

[Tom <tom(at)lemuria.org>]

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?

-- 
http://web.lemuria.org/pubkey.html
pub  1024D/2D7A04F5 2002-05-16 Tom Vogt <tom@lemuria.org>
     Key fingerprint = C731 64D1 4BCF 4C20 48A4  29B2 BF01 9FA1 2D7A 04F5