Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9520 misc.int-property:605 comp.unix.bsd:6739 Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!virtualnews.nyu.edu!brnstnd From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors. Message-ID: <20961.Oct1801.25.1692@virtualnews.nyu.edu> Date: 18 Oct 92 01:25:16 GMT References: <1992Oct11.031616.854@netcom.com> <id.OR0U.JXD@ferranti.com> <1992Oct13.053105.20874@netcom.com> Organization: IR Lines: 16 In article <1992Oct13.053105.20874@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes: > In article <id.OR0U.JXD@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: > >But you have an absolute defense, in that I have never had any access to > >trade secret protected code. AT&T can't play that game too many times. > You still will have to prove it. No. Trade secret law doesn't really define any new things to do wrong. Its main effect is to increase the penalties if you do certain old things wrong. If, for example, you sign a contract promising to keep things secret, and you break the contract, then trade secret law can dramatically increase the damages you'll have to pay. If Peter hasn't signed a contract promising to keep AT&T code secret, he's basically safe. ---Dan