4 ms·
Nothing's wrong with it as an analogy; I would have found "this is like blurting out Coca-Cola's secret formula!" extremely apt, not least for the reason that y
by JadeNB 10y ago
Nothing's wrong with it as an analogy; I would have found "this is like blurting out Coca-Cola's secret formula!" extremely apt, not least for the reason that you mention. However, the judge's wording
> If she had had the recipe for Coca-Cola she could have blurted it out in this court right now.
seemed less like a comparison than a description of the dire consequences of this sort of behaviour, and it struck me as funny: surely anyone who's unconvinced of the seriousness of blurting out one business's proprierary information won't be convinced about the seriousness of blurting out another's?
- johncolanduoni 10y agoI took it as him stressing the fact that though these numbers weren't likely to completely destroy Google's business models, if this was truly a "heat of the argument" thing (i.e. not calculated) that suggests she'd be likely to do the same with even more sensitive information that might.
- slavik81 10y agoCoca-Cola's formula is literally a textbook example of a trade secret. Everybody remotely familiar with IP law knows how important secrecy is for Coke. Many fewer people are familiar with how important it is for Google. The comparison shows that the same rule protects both, and that it should not be carelessly breached.