5 ms·
Your definition of trade secrets is different than most court's definition. The definition used by most jurisdictions is: 1. Not generally known or ascertainab
by micks56 17y ago
Your definition of trade secrets is different than most court's definition. The definition used by most jurisdictions is:
1. Not generally known or ascertainable by legal methods (TechCrunch violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to get the info.)
2. Must provide competitive value (Strategy plans provide competitive value)
3. Must be subject to reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy (the password, while weak, probably does constitute a reasonable effort)
edit: I see that you edited your post to include the New York Times case. The facts of that case are different than the one with TechCrunch. In NYT, the Federal Government tried to abridge the freedom of press. That triggered the 1st Amendment protections. Here, with TechCrunch, neither the Federal Government or any State Government are trying to prevent TC from printing the information. Therefore, the 1st Amendment does not apply.
- rjurney 17y agoYou seem to have zero respect for the press. By your standard, Tobacco cancer data should never have been leaked and printed.
- micks56 17y ago1. I have tremendous respect for the press and the work they do. I am separating personal values from what the law is. But I do believe that this is a case where the law and ethics are on the same side. 2. This isn't my standard. It is the standard that courts across the country use. The majority of states (including California) adopted a less stringent version call the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Only 4 states, including my Massachusetts, whose version you see above, haven't adopted the act and instead employee their own versions. 3. Tobacco cancer data might be distinguished. First, it is a stretch to find that it has competitive value. Therefore it would not be classified under trade secret. Second, it probably isn't even covered under copyright because facts are not copyrightable, no matter how much effort was undertook to find them. But I don't really know the facts of the leaked cancer data. I would have to read them in order to determine whether it was legal for it to be leaked to the press.
- rjurney 17y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_St... If the President of the United States can't block secrets from being published... you think Twitter can? I would submit your knowledge of the practices of Journalism and the law in this area are lacking. Publishing secrets is the business of newspapers. It happens every day. Its their job. I am very surprised that so many people here fail to understand this. Just because you like Twitter does not mean its not appropriate to publish their extremely newsworthy secrets.
- micks56 17y agoYes, because that is exactly how the 1st Amendment works. In NYT, the Federal Government tried to abridge the freedom of press. That triggered the 1st Amendment protections. Here, with TechCrunch, neither the Federal Government or any State Government are trying to prevent TC from printing the information. Therefore, the 1st Amendment does not apply. I admit that I have zero knowledge of journalism practices. But my legal knowledge is much greater; I am just over one semester away from graduating from law school. I am neutral on Twitter. They are a company that I neither like nor dislike and I do not use their product.
- nopassrecover 17y agoBut, if I understand rjurney correctly, wouldn't any case brought up in a court that ruled against TC be in fact the government, through the courts, preventing free speech? I.e. if this went to court TC would have to win due to the 1st Amendment?
- ErrantX 17y agocourts != government.
- nopassrecover 17y agoThanks. Here in Australia I would assume it does because being based on the Westminster system a lot of legislation is based on court rulings rather than the law. For instance, Australia doesn't have freedom of speech through the law, but the high court has ruled that we have an implicit freedom to all speech not outlawed.