[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] CA Supreme Court hears Pavlovich Jurisdiction Challenge in DVDCCA case
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CA Supreme Court hears Pavlovich Jurisdiction Challenge in DVDCCA case
- From: Tom <tom(at)lemuria.org>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 01:43:40 +0200
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>; from [email protected] on Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 12:41:08PM -0700
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected] et> <[email protected]>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
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 <[email protected]>
Key fingerprint = C731 64D1 4BCF 4C20 48A4 29B2 BF01 9FA1 2D7A 04F5