Subject:
|
Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Aug 2000 21:43:17 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
MATTDM@MATTDMspamcake.ORG
|
Viewed:
|
5746 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote:
> Feel free to provide a cite. I don't have a Lexis ID but the 10 minutes I
> spent on altavista looking mostly bolstered the opposite view. That's not a
> definitive proof, mind you, as people are sloppy with words all the time.
I apologize. My statement is true for copyright law (with which I am much
more familiar), but apparently not so for trade secrets. (This is where all
of those I Am Not A Lawyer disclaimers come in.)
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/ch90.text.html#PC90>
However, I also find it interesting that the code cited above contains the
phrases "to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof" and
"intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade
secret". It's not clear where the burden of proof for such things might lie,
although I certainly don't want to be the one to test it -- the potential
fines are amazingly huge. Arguably, knowing this information is to our
economic _detriment_, as we're all likely to spend lots of money on it. :)
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
