| |||||||||||||
LCA: The state of the Nouveau projectLCA: The state of the Nouveau projectPosted Jan 17, 2007 14:35 UTC (Wed) by mattdm (subscriber, #18)In reply to: LCA: The state of the Nouveau project by sanjoy Parent article: LCA: The state of the Nouveau project
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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.)
|
|||||||||||||