LCA: The state of the Nouveau project [LWN.net]

LCA: The state of the Nouveau project

Posted Jan 17, 2007 13:17 UTC (Wed) by sanjoy (subscriber, #5026)
In reply to: LCA: The state of the Nouveau project by johoho
Parent article: LCA: The state of the Nouveau project

Copyright covers the expression (e.g. the code), not the ideas (e.g. not the register information or algorithms). So even if trade secrets were obtained in dubious ways (who might themselves face civil or criminal penalties), others can use this information.

If the information in question were source code, then others have to be very careful to show that they did not look at the code, otherwise they risk copyright infringment suits, which can be ruinous even if you are totally in the clear.

Patents are also another story, but by definition their information is already made public in the patent filing, so it's not a question of how the information was obtained (but whether you can use it).

Usual disclaimers that I'm not a lawyer, so this for sure ain't legal advice.

(Log in to post comments)

LCA: The state of the Nouveau project

Posted Jan 17, 2007 14:35 UTC (Wed) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link]

I'm not a lawyer either, but this actually doesn't work with trade secrets, which are a separate area of intellectual property law from copyright. If you know something was only available wrongly, you can't use it.

LCA: The state of the Nouveau project

Posted Jan 17, 2007 15:47 UTC (Wed) by emk (guest, #1128) [Link]

If you know something was only available wrongly, you can't use it.

Well, if you're responsible for the wrong-doing, then you're liable. But as far as I know, once the information becomes public, then the trade secret is pretty much moot, at least as far as innocent third-parties are concerned. (I'd check with a lawyer before acting on that assumption, though. And rules are presumably different in different jurisdictions.)

Trade non-secrets

Posted Jan 23, 2007 0:16 UTC (Tue) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link]

Back in college (a few decades ago), I actually took a course in copyright, patent, trade secret, &c. (And, boy, do they have roughly nothing in common.)

The law said if you've been granted access to a trade secret under an NDA, you can be held accountable (like, sued), if you disclose said secret. The law, however, also recognized the impossibility of putting the toothpaste back in the tube—once the information is out, it isn't a secret, and can no longer be treated as such.

(So why would anyone use secrecy instead of patent? Because there's no time limit. So long as you can keep it secret, even beyond the twenty years allotted to patents, it's yours alone. That's why Coca-Cola hasn't patented its recipe.)