Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

SI - Site Forums : Silicon Investor - Welcome New SI Members! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacalyn Deaner who wrote (6799)	7/8/1999 2:31:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32912

My eye caught the phrase: (B) If a subpoena (i) requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information,... the court may order appearance or production only upon specified conditions. How about if everyone who was concerned about this gave formal notice to SI that they considered the identification of the person using the SI alias to be a trade secret? I don't know the legal definition of a trade secret (I don't work in that area of law), but I don't see why one couldn't at least make the claim. It would certainly muddy the waters.

To: Jacalyn Deaner who wrote (6799)	7/8/1999 3:49:00 PM
From: S. maltophilia	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32912

<<Many of the subpoenas we receive from the government....>> SI keeps referring to government subpeonae, presumably linked to securities law and other criminal investigations. Our main concern seems to be information requests from other parties, especially rogue lawyers whose clients are out to intimidate those who question their fraudulent schemes. I hope SI addresses this issue without sidestepping it. All you lawyers out there, is there anything in the Bar ethics codes that governs the use of subpoena powers? Are there any sanctions provided for their misuse?