Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: TRADE SECRETS! GET YER T Message-ID: <9509301007.0E89J00@support.com> References: <122306Z30091995@anon.penet.fi> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Sat, 30 Sep 95 10:07:44 -0700 Lines: 73 janda@netcom.com (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) >Brad Wallace wrote: >>Although the >>Ninth Circuit rejected plaintiffs' trade secret argument >>based on the spiritual value of the harm, it later noted >>that it had left open the question of whether the Advanced >>Technology works could qualify as trade secrets, assuming >>plaintiffs could prove that the secrets confer on them an >>actual economic advantage over >>competitors. Religious Technology Center v. Scott, 869 F.2d >>1306, 1310 (9th Cir. 1989); cf. Vien, 729 F.Supp. at 629. [22] >>Nonetheless, the court noted that such an allegation would >>"raise grave doubts about [the Church's] claim as a religion >>and not-for-profit corporation. [23] Id. (quoting Wollersheim, >>796 F.2d at 1091). > >Screwed one way or the other. If you justify the trade secret >on the basis of spiritual harm, you lose, if you claim trade secret >status because of money, you are not a non-profit organization. >Tough luck clams. Right. >>BecauseRTC is the plaintiff, and because it is moving >>for injunctive relief, it bear the burden of proving its >>trade secrets. 3 Milgrim sec. 15.01[1]. The court finds >>that RTC has failed to adequately define its trade secrets >>and, at least as to those works that have been made >>available to the public through previous Internet postings >>not by Erlich, RTC has failed to meet its burden on the issue >>of secrecy. Therefore, RTC has failed to show a likelihood >>of success on its trade secret misappropriation claim. >worth repeating, but it looks like it's not the final word on this. >Could RTC "adequately define" what the trade secrets are and thus >argue more persuasively for trade secret status? Keith: >No. Whyte is saying that there are two things occuring here: > >(1) The material that has been posted to the net via Scamizdat, et al >prevents them from claiming "trade secret" status for that material. > >(2) Nobody in the cult seems to actually know _what_ their "trade >secrets" are. Until they can define that, they an't claim trade secret >status on things. > >As I read it, what's he's saying is: > >"Look, guys. Figure out what you think are your trade secrets, and if >they haven't been posted to hundreds of thousands of people on the >Internet already, you may be able to claim trade secret misappropriation >on them." Exactly so. >Of course, IANAL, don't drink and drive, always hold hands when crossing >the street, California residents at 7% sales tax... > >Granted, the "secrets" >are all over the 'Net, so perhaps even that might not help. > >The "secrets" are all over the walls of Amsterdam. Ho, ho, ho, Helena. +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby"