[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] FW: SJ MercuryNews, Ruling a blow for DVD indus try (11-02-2001) (Emailing: dvdsuit02.htm)
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FW: SJ MercuryNews, Ruling a blow for DVD indus try (11-02-2001) (Emailing: dvdsuit02.htm)
- From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs(at)lumbercartel.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 11:48:10 -0700
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! *****
- References: <[email protected]>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Monday 05 November 2001 11:13, you wrote:
> The thing that this murky news article neglects to mention is that trade
> secret protection is only from those who have the obligation to keep
> the secret but do not. And perhaps those who can be shown to have
> directly stolen the secret from the owners (i.e. you break in to the vault
> in Atlanta to aquire the Coca Cola recipie, but you leave your fingerprints
> behind).
>
> Independant discovery of a process that somebody else considers to
> be "their secret" is _not_ legally prohibited.
Yet.
Keep your eye out for "trade secret" legislation at the Federal level
that will effectively rule out the independent-discovery defense and
provide patent-like "intellectual property" with neither the expiration nor
originality requirements of patents.
--
| I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
+----------- D. C. Sessions <[email protected]> ----------+