On Tue, 02 May 2000 01:09:00 GMT, "Fredric L. Rice"

<frice@skeptictank.org> wrote:

"Fredric L. Rice" wrote:

>And as I recall, Judge White correctly ruled that the materials
>which SCAMIZDAT had been posting were _NOT_ "trade
>secrets." Unless I'm totally mistaken.
No, you are right. Here is Judge Whyte declaring that the trade secret status is GONE one published on the Internet:

RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a California non-profit corporation;

and BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS, INC., a California non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs, v. NETCOM ON-LINE COMMUNICATION SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; DENNIS ERLICH, an individual; and TOM KLEMESRUD, an individual, dba CLEARWOOD DATA SERVICES, Defendants.

NO. C-95-20091 RMW 923 F. Supp. 1231 (September 22, 1995) ...

"Finally, Erlich newly emphasizes in his Reply that the works he posted were not secrets because he received them through proper means: eight of the documents were allegedly previously posted anonymously to a public portion of the Internet and one of the [*1256] documents (item 1 of Exhibit B) allegedly came to Erlich anonymously through the U.S. mail. Erlich claims that because the alleged trade secrets were received from "public sources," they should lose their trade secret protection. Although the Internet is a new technology, it requires no great leap to conclude that because more than 25 million people could have accessed the newsgroup [**67] postings from which Erlich alleges he received the Exhibit B works, these works would lose their status as secrets.

While the Internet has not reached the status where a temporary posting on a newsgroup is akin to publication in a major newspaper or on a television network, those with an interest in using the Church's trade secrets to compete with the Church are likely to look to the newsgroup. Thus, posting works to the Internet makes them "generally known" to the relevant people--the potential "competitors" of the Church.

The court is troubled by the notion that any Internet user, including those using "anonymous remailers" n29 to protect their identity, can destroy valuable intellectual property rights by posting them over the Internet, especially given the fact that there is little opportunity to screen postings before they are made. See Eduardo M. Carreras, "Intellectual Property: First Casualty on the Information Highway," 13 No. 1 ACCA Docket 26 (Westlaw) ("Carreras") (Jan.-Feb. 1995) at *29-*32 (suggesting that trade secret protection is lost as soon as information is disclosed on the Internet). Nonetheless, one of the Internet's virtues, that it gives even the poorest [**68] individuals the power to publish to millions of readers, see Eugene Volokh, "Cheap Speech and What It Will Do," 104 Yale L. J. 1805, 1806-07 (1995), can also be a detriment to the value of intellectual property rights. The anonymous (or judgment proof) defendant can permanently destroy valuable trade secrets, leaving no one to hold liable for the misappropriation. See Carreras at *30. Although a work posted to an Internet newsgroup remains accessible to the public for only a limited amount of time, once that trade secret has been released into the public domain there is no retrieving it. In re Remington Arms, 952 F.2d at 1033. While the court is persuaded by the Church's evidence that those who made the original postings likely gained the information through improper means, as no one outside the Church or without a duty of confidence would have had access to those works, n30 this does not negate the finding that, once posted, the works lost their secrecy."

Grady Ward grady@gradyward.com http://www.gradyward.com/ voice (707) 826-7712 fax (413) 832-2600 PGP! 7E0E EF0E 613D CEB8 6E8D 9D57 069F 8BC0 8C88 EB82 MESSAGES NOT CRYPTOGRAPHICALLY SIGNED MAY NOT BE AUTHENTIC

Go Back