Russ:
I appreciate your informative comments. It is obvious to me, for one, that you have had extensive experience in the cryptographic arena.
Because of the guidance of your post, I hopped on Slashdot for a look. It would be unkind to say, but there are those that might think that the Slashdot forum is nothing more that a BBS for hackers of code.
You are, of course, familiar with the DMCA, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. The act tries to seek a balance between legitimate uses of encrypted code and unauthorized and anti-commercial ones.
In light of the recent stream of malicious virus attacks, the Act, I would think you will agree, seems timely indeed.
Under that act and specifically section 1201(g) of that Act, it seems to be MSFT's contention that the guys from slash dot stole the code.
Slashdot's attorneys thrust, as is yours, is that since the code was in public purview, MSFT has lost it Trade Secrets protection.
"Trade Secrets" is not the main issue. Trade Secrets is only an important consideration in determining whether the code was illegally obtained, under 1201(g) of the Act.
Is this sort of along the lines you were thinking?
Duke
|
