anseljh

Fun fact: there is also no express patent license in GPLv2. There have been lawsuits on that. I know because I was the lawyer who filed one of them. So...yeah, this problem is not hypothetical.

Nope. Typography was an excellent vessel for a history lesson here.

Don't forget the typography on the SS's IBM Hollerith punch cards, too. Scroll down, 2nd to last image. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ibm-and-quot-death-s-cal...

Yes, federal magistrate judges.

The declassified NRO documents are here: http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/MOL.html

Check out "Asc"'s comment:

"There are adblocker-blocker-blockers definition lists... if you can make sense of that. In other words, there are subscriptions (as simple as checking a box in the ad blocker options) that block the scripts that detect that someone has an ad blocker on."

Quite the arms race!

Interesting!

Notably, "Percentage of Requests Where Some Data Produced" is all 0%.

Well, everyone would be able to use YC Research's public outputs defensively as prior art.

Did you read the post?

Why isn't this the default?

Try another point of view. If this review was done outside the case, then it would very likely have to be re-done later IN the case with expert witnesses who are disclosed to the other side through the formal discovery process. It's not crazy to want to avoid duplicating that cost. Also, they can challenge Shred's expert in court if they don't like who you pick.

And...I saw the court filings...you have a lawyer...stop talking to randos on HN for advice. :)

I admit, my attention was divided earlier between Hacker News and my day job as a California IP litigator.

Here you go:

Yes, the UTSA statute is "the law". But it's not the ONLY law. Where there are gaps, courts look to case law, just like in any other area of law. And the UTSA was drafted with the old common law in mind, continuing much of it, but codifying it. That's why courts DO look at the older common law to inform their interpretations of the UTSA.

This is from page 1 of the Prefatory Note in the 1985 final draft of the UTSA:

"The Uniform Act codifies the basic principles of common law trade secret protection, preserving its essential distinctions from patent law."

With that, I'm done with this thread. We are way off-topic since the lawsuit in the original post doesn't even have a trade secret claim. I'm also done dispensing free legal advice for the night.

Well, good thing you're not my client. :)

If you wish to brave the San Francisco Superior Court's abysmal court records website, you can plug in case number "CGC 15 545359" to see the docket and view the documents in the case.

Um. That "old" "tradition" is binding law until it's overruled. It hasn't been.

Again, here are the current California trade secrets statutes:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xh...

California trade secrets law has not changed drastically since 2005. If you have actual information to the contrary, by all means, point to it.

You're correct that there's more to it than just keeping something secret:

- It has to also be valuable because of the secrecy, so the number I'm thinking in my head doesn't count. But customer lists typically do have value because of secrecy.

- Trade secrecy can be destroyed if the secret gets out.

There's no reason to argue in the abstract. Here's how California law actually defines "trade secret" -- Civil Code 3426.1(d):

(d) “Trade secret” means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:

(1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

(2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xh...

The law of customer lists being trade secrets is literally centuries old.

Perhaps you're remembering a recent case about whether LinkedIn contacts could qualify as trade secrets, which tested where to draw the line:

http://blogs.orrick.com/trade-secrets-watch/2014/10/27/new-s...

In the US, the loser doesn't even always pay the legal fees. It depends.

That can be done -- there is a claim for malicious prosecution. But you have to win the first case before you can bring it.

The other alternative, in the current case, is to ask the court for sanctions.

This is SUPER wrong. Customer lists were one of the original trade secrets under common law, and they still are trade secrets--as long as they're kept secret.

More modern applications:

"Business Information Trade secrets in this category may include: ... Customer lists" http://www.fenwick.com/FenwickDocuments/Trade_Secrets_Protec...

"California court affirms that customer lists can qualify as trade secrets" http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ea22e316-7210-...

Downvoting reality.. nice work, HN!

Here's how contracts work: A makes an offer to exchange something of value. If B accepts that offer, there's a contract.

How's that work for websites? The website publishes its TOS. You go to the website and are able to look at the TOS. If you keep using the site, you're held to the TOS. You've impliedly agreed to it. If you disagree with it, you can leave.

There is certainly some legal fiction going on here. Of course most users don't read the TOS, and even if they tried to, they wouldn't understand them. But courts have enforced them anyway. What would happen if they didn't? It would be anarchy.

There are limits to what TOSes can do, sure. But the point of what I said -- that TOS are contracts, and can bind you -- that is true. Mocking that truth is pretty silly and uninformed.

The terms of service for the site that's delivered to you over HTTP, though--that is a legally binding contract. Some have no-ad-blocking terms.

No, the school board should find them.

I'm still seething mad after first reading about this 2 hours ago.

What, if anything, could these dimwitted officials do to atone for this outrage?

Even mighty IBM's lawyers can be sanctioned for bringing a frivolous case out of thin air. If you're careful, you should be OK.

Not sure why you think that. Here's California's moonlighting law:

"Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information..."

http://www.weblaws.org/california/codes/ca_lab_section_2870

Here's the Complaint (PDF): https://ia801503.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.cand.2...

"streaming freedom" is a really clever euphemism.

Some smart people are bad people. It sounds like you met them. Or maybe they thought you were trolling them?

How many public defenders have you had similar conversations with? You might get different results.

Well, you don't just flip a switch. You need to go back to grad school and get a JD degree, which is 3 years full-time, and then pass a bar exam. Law school was not especially difficult, but it was a lot of work, which was fine. The bar exam is brutal.

The bigger point is that I never recommend this to people who aren't sure. It's really sad when people spend 3 years and accrue a ton of debt and then realize they hate the job. So I always recommend getting a job in the industry first and trying it out. I did that, working as a paralegal for a couple years first. It was time well spent.