Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site desint.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!desint!geoff From: geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards,net.legal Subject: Re: yacc: public domain? Message-ID: <308@desint.UUCP> Date: Sat, 12-Jan-85 15:49:22 EST Article-I.D.: desint.308 Posted: Sat Jan 12 15:49:22 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 15-Jan-85 01:17:04 EST References: <217@vax2.fluke.UUCP> Organization: his home computer, Manhattan Beach, CA Lines: 47 Xref: watmath net.unix-wizards:11512 net.legal:1304 In article <217@vax2.fluke.UUCP> kurt@fluke.UUCP (Kurt Guntheroth) writes: >Does the trade secret act deal with the legality of >some hacker breaking into a university computer, taking accessible >information, and using/distributing/publishing it? As I understand it, it's not an act, it's a body of law relating to trade secrets that goes a long way back (possibly to English common law). To answer your question, yes, the law deals with this quite explicitly. Most articles on trade secrets for the computer layman have covered this point (which is where I got it). The hacker is liable for the full value of the software he/she took from AT&T and published (good luck recovering, Bell!). However, anyone who acquired that software from net.sources *in good faith* CANNOT be held liable. (Good faith means that nobody on this net should try to claim that they didn't know the UNIX kernel was proprietary when it was posted to net.sources). Furthermore, once a *single* party has acquired the sources by legal means and in good faith, the trade secret is effectively gone. Poof. >Doesn't the >non-disclosure agreement only cover non-disclosure of information you could >not easily obtain elsewhere? Yes. There is a specific provision in trade secret law that prevents you from recovering if the defendant can show that the secrets were *not* acquired by any illegal means. (Note that this is not true of US military-secret law.) This is similar to the patent and copyright provisions that basically keep you from getting protection on something that's been around for 50 years unpatented or uncopyrighted. There is also a specific provision in at least California non-disclosure law (and in many fair non-disclosure agreements) that voids a non-disclosure agreement regarding any information that the student or employee knew before signing. (I presume, though I don't know, that there is an exception to the exception to handle the case where the "prior knowledge" was covered by an earlier nondisclosure). BTW, Henry is right about the AT&T (source) contract covering *everything*. However, my position is that this contract has been (and continues to be) violated sufficiently often that AT&T has no chance of claiming trade secret protection on the UNIX binaries. There are just too many people who have been given binary access on a casual basis. -- Geoff Kuenning ...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff