[6307] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: DeCSS Court Hearing Report
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bram)
Mon Jan 3 20:55:27 2000
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 11:46:48 -0800 (PST)
From: bram <bram@gawth.com>
To: Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to>
Cc: "cypherpunks@Algebra. COM" <cypherpunks@Algebra.COM>,
"Cryptography@C2. Net" <cryptography@c2.net>,
John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
In-Reply-To: <LNBBKBDNAIGNIABGAGJLCEAJFNAA.shamrock@cypherpunks.to>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10001031143150.30158-100000@ultra.gawth.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Lucky Green wrote:
> 1. CSS was reverse engineered from Xing's DVD player.
> 2. Xing's player requires the user to click on a button accepting a license
> agreement prohibiting reverse engineering.
> 3. Reverse engineering could not have been performed without accepting this
> license agreement.
This may be reiterating the obvious, but isn't (3) just plain wrong?
> Next, the plaintiff alleges that since the CSS trade secret was therefore
> obtained by illegal means (breach of contract) the trade secret is still
> afforded protection. Similarly to a trade secret that has been leaked by a
> person under NDA.
This may be a legally naive idea, but I've always assumed that if
something is no longer a secret, it's no longer a trade secret. Is that
not the case?
-Bram
