4 ms·

Wouldn't B's publication of the information make it by definition no longer a trade secret? It is now public knowledge, regardless of whether the current or fo

Wouldn't B's publication of the information make it by definition no longer a trade secret? It is now public knowledge, regardless of whether the current or former engineers might be liable for the original leak. Any other interpretation would mean trade secrets have essentially infinite protection/NDAs apply to all of humanity.

danielheath 11d ago
> NDAs apply to all of humanity The NDA doesn't apply to people who haven't signed it, but copyright law does. If you know the material you're receiving is under copyright (eg proprietary source code), and you publish work based on that copyright material, the fact that it's now widely available is not an effective defense against claims of copyright violation. Person B in this scenario hasn't violated the NDA, but they could be sued for copyright infringement.
- Dylan16807 10d ago
  The point of a clean-room implementation is that the only thing passing from A to B is a detailed specification written from scratch, because functional details cannot be copyrighted. Which I think you know, so I don't understand your argument. You said in another comment "However, this specific thread is about the scenario where an employee has inside knowledge and is passing that knowledge on to the implementer." It being proprietary and/or secret information doesn't affect the copyright of the clean-room output. If there's trade secret implications those are worth discussing, but as a separate issue.
  - danielheath 9d ago
    Functional details can’t be copyrighted, but once you’ve seen a copyrighted implementation, it’s an argument in court over similarity and function. A clean room implementation by people who haven’t seen the original work means there can be no discussion of copying, which makes it much cheaper and more reliable to fight an infringement claim.
    - Dylan16807 9d ago
      Assuming I understand what you mean by "people", then this comment sounds completely correct and contradicts your last comment. Your last comment said person B could be sued for copyright infringement. But the essence of clean-room is that person B "hasn't seen the original work which means there can be no discussion of copying". Person A is not giving the original documents to person B, they only give functional details. One of your earlier comments had a vague description of clean-room that wasn't clear on this aspect. But you were responding to someone that gave a clear and correct definition, so I assumed you were also using the actual definition. If you've actually been talking about fake not-really-clean-room then sure someone could get sued. But that's obvious. The suggestion by alightsoul was actual clean-room.
      - danielheath 7d ago
        Arguing in court over whether the details in question were functional or copyright is time-consuming (thus expensive), and risky. Once it's established that person A has given _any_ details to person B, the upper bound on "expected cost of an effective defense" is dramatically higher.
        Dylan16807 7d ago
        > Once it's established that person A has given _any_ details to person B, the upper bound on "expected cost of an effective defense" is dramatically higher. Yeah but that's what clean room is. You said "A clean room implementation by people who haven’t seen the original work means there can be no discussion of copying, which makes it much cheaper and more reliable to fight an infringement claim." Something doesn't add up. If you were thinking about a situation where the developers don't get the original work, and nobody feeds them info based on the original work either, that's not clean room, that's something much harder.

danielheath 11d ago

> NDAs apply to all of humanity The NDA doesn't apply to people who haven't signed it, but copyright law does. If you know the material you're receiving is under copyright (eg proprietary source code), and you publish work based on that copyright material, the fact that it's now widely available is not an effective defense against claims of copyright violation. Person B in this scenario hasn't violated the NDA, but they could be sued for copyright infringement.

Dylan16807 10d ago
The point of a clean-room implementation is that the only thing passing from A to B is a detailed specification written from scratch, because functional details cannot be copyrighted. Which I think you know, so I don't understand your argument. You said in another comment "However, this specific thread is about the scenario where an employee has inside knowledge and is passing that knowledge on to the implementer." It being proprietary and/or secret information doesn't affect the copyright of the clean-room output. If there's trade secret implications those are worth discussing, but as a separate issue.
- danielheath 9d ago
  Functional details can’t be copyrighted, but once you’ve seen a copyrighted implementation, it’s an argument in court over similarity and function. A clean room implementation by people who haven’t seen the original work means there can be no discussion of copying, which makes it much cheaper and more reliable to fight an infringement claim.
  - Dylan16807 9d ago
    Assuming I understand what you mean by "people", then this comment sounds completely correct and contradicts your last comment. Your last comment said person B could be sued for copyright infringement. But the essence of clean-room is that person B "hasn't seen the original work which means there can be no discussion of copying". Person A is not giving the original documents to person B, they only give functional details. One of your earlier comments had a vague description of clean-room that wasn't clear on this aspect. But you were responding to someone that gave a clear and correct definition, so I assumed you were also using the actual definition. If you've actually been talking about fake not-really-clean-room then sure someone could get sued. But that's obvious. The suggestion by alightsoul was actual clean-room.
    - danielheath 7d ago
      Arguing in court over whether the details in question were functional or copyright is time-consuming (thus expensive), and risky. Once it's established that person A has given _any_ details to person B, the upper bound on "expected cost of an effective defense" is dramatically higher.
      - Dylan16807 7d ago
        > Once it's established that person A has given _any_ details to person B, the upper bound on "expected cost of an effective defense" is dramatically higher. Yeah but that's what clean room is. You said "A clean room implementation by people who haven’t seen the original work means there can be no discussion of copying, which makes it much cheaper and more reliable to fight an infringement claim." Something doesn't add up. If you were thinking about a situation where the developers don't get the original work, and nobody feeds them info based on the original work either, that's not clean room, that's something much harder.