> Yeah, I've never quite gotten this either. You declare it as a trade > secret, but don't file a patent on it because that would release the > trade secret to the public. But without the patent, in theory, you > have no protection. So, what good does declaring it a 'trade secret' > do you if anyone can come along and "think up" the same thing?
Coke... (the drink, not the drug). They have a trade secret on the coke formula because they didn't want it to be in a patent so anybody could make it. Now, if you reverse engineer coke and make the same thing they can't do jack. But if somebody on the inside gave you the formula and you started making it then that would be bad becuase the trade secret was stolen. What SCO is saying as far as the trade secret is concerned is that somebody either leaked or broke in and stole code. The only way to prove this of course is in a court since SCO can get that stuff sealed and a judge and the lawers can all look at the code and see if it's the same. That way both sides see the code in question, they're sworn to uphold the trade secret and they all find out if it's the same or not. _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
