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
