I don't think you can. If an employeee blabs, while the employee is liable for civil action, it would probably be possible to get an injunction against the person the employee blabbed to.
You'd have to show that the person had done something illegal to get an injunction against them...and getting someone drunk so they'll talk about things they aren't suppose to talk about isn't illegal.
The court will only issue injunctions to prevent someone who did something illegal from profiting from it...they won't issue injunctions to stop trade secrets from being legally 'stolen'.
Also note that if I trick someone else into telling it, while they may be liable, I am not, and can use my knowledge in any way I want. (Which, BTW, is one of the few forms of legal blackmail...I can offer to sign an NDA if they will pay me X amount of money.)
Extortion is not legal blackmail.
No, blackmail is extortion, extortion in general isn't blackmail, and I have no idea what you're talking about.
However, if I (legitimately) learn a trade secret of some company, I can a) forget it, b) use it myself, c) tell the world, or d) tell the company I have it and will sign an NDA for X amount of money.
And all those options are completely legal, and if you look at c and d you'll find out that, yes, you can legally 'blackmail' them or 'extort' them or whatever word you want to use. You can charge them money not to reveal one of their secrets, and I don't know what else to call that except legal blackmail.
Actually, the gag is that they lose it no matter what.
You can't 'resecret' a trade secret. You can sue the person who stole it if they stole it illegally, and you can, in theory, prohibit the thief (the person you are suing) from giving it out or using it as part of the suit judgement, with the threat of more punishment if they do.
What you cannot do it get some magical 'back in the bottle' judgement when it's already been given out to anyone else. You cannot stop people who did nothing illegal from using or giving away your trade secret, even if it was 'stolen'.
Except figuring out trade secrets by brute force is completely legal.
Trade secrets are basically anti-patents. (Which is why the term 'intellectual property' is stupid.)
With patents, inventers are screwed even if they reinvent it without knowing about the original.
With trade secrets, not only can invent it myself, but I can do everything in my power to learn it from you as long as I obey the law and don't break any signed NDAs.
If I am, to pick a mostly silly but widely used example trade secret, trying to steal the formula to Coke, I not only can subject the drink to chemical analysis, but I can take a tour of the plant with a hidden high-powered camera, I can rifle through their trash, I can get hired as a employee and attempt to learn it that way, I can get an employee drunk, etc. If I do, I win. (Note all companies make you sign an NDA before learning trade secrets, and in some places it's actually part of your employment contract, so you actually can't sign on with them to learn it.)
Also note that if I trick someone else into telling it, while they may be liable, I am not, and can use my knowledge in any way I want. (Which, BTW, is one of the few forms of legal blackmail...I can offer to sign an NDA if they will pay me X amount of money.)
Decrypting CSS has no patents on it. Sans the their idiotic 'trade secret' suit, the only 'violation' is that somehow they are the only people authorized to authorize you to watch DVDs, due to the magic of the DMCA. (I, personally, want to make a CSS encoded DVD and sue them, but the encrypting is patented...but there are countries that do not allow software patents. And there are no legal issues with importing a device made with a process that's patented here but not elsewhere, as long as the device itself does not use the patented processes. Just one damn CSS made by someone who's not a member of the MPAA or one of their licencees and the entire house of cards comes crashing down, and there's no risk at all as long as you make it in a country without software patents. (It's not like making a player, they can't sue you under the DMCA for making a DVD.) For bonus points, claim DeCSS is the only authorized player for your DVD.)
And the trade secret suit was stupid from the start, anyway. You can't protect trade secrets by slapping a EULA on a piece of software, you have to have real contracts with real signatures. To get around being bound by an EULA, legally, is child's play. They did it by being in a country that didn't allow you ban reverse engineering, but you could have done it by simply having someone else click 'I Agree', or gotten a decompressor for the installer and copied the files out manually to reverse engineer. (And, yes, copying the files manually to install the software is completely legal.) Tada, you're not legally bound by the EULA, even if you would have been normally bound by it, which is itself in question because it's imposing terms after the sale.
And since someone could do that, it's automatically not a trade secret, so even if that's not how they break it, it doesn't matter. If you (on purpose) had your company secrets laying in plain sight from the street on a desk, and I can prove it, I didn't steal your 'trade secrets' even if I, personally, happened to get them by breaking into the building and cracking a safe...because they stopped being trade secrets when you failed to try to protect them.(You can fail to protect them, but you have to at least try for them to remain trade secrets.)
Trade secrets have to be real secrets, and you can't just hand out devices that use them willy-nilly in the store. If you walk into court with a 'trade secret' violation and can't immediately produce a list of people who have had authorized access to it and the contracts they signed, you'll get laughed out of court, and it's really amazing the MPAA was able to drag this out this long, probably by conflating it with the supposed DMCA violations, which are utterly unrelated.
Also, you probably shouldn't patent the damn encoder if you are trying to keep the decoder secret, that really doesn't make any sense either.
Hey, moron, what the fuck do trademark and patent law have to do with anything? Decrypting CSS is not under a patent, and trademarks don't have anything to do with this issue.
And the DMCA is copyright law, duh. I'd let that one slip except you obviously had no idea what you were talking about in the first place.
So, you not only replied to an obvious troll, but you replied in such a way that shows you have absolutely no knowledge of the issue.
You can't make Coca-Cola anyway, even if you now the formula. (Which, BTW, is basically known, although it's been through a few revisions since then. The formula from known is from, I think, the 1960s. It would basically taste the same as the current one, the biggest change since then is well known, the change to corn syrup from sugar.)
Coca-Cola contains essense of de-cocainized coca leaves, they have a plant in New Jersey and a special license from the DEA to import coca leaves. If you get the formula, good luck getting a license to import coca leaves, or trying to purchase essence of coca leaves from Coke.
And they like to pretend the secret is a lot better guarded than it is. Half a dozen people in their syrup plant can, and I quote, 'make it while asleep'.
That's probably why they made it the engineering building in the first place...they couldn't find a qualified engineer to design their next building, so decided to train some for the building after that.
BTW, even if all that was completely and utterly true, it still wouldn't work.
If I, however wrongly, believe that, say, owning people is legal, and have a car dealership, and I write a general contract anyone can sign saying you can have my car in exchange for your first born, and people come in and accept it...
And then one of them sues for their kid back...well, he's going to win. The contract required an illegal action on their part. But, and this is the important bit...I get the car back.
Courts can selectively strike down parts of contracts...but they can't strike down the point of a contract, they cannot alter a contract so that one side gets something and the other side gets nothing, because that's an invalid contract, despite what SCO thinks.
That type of contract is simply not possible under contract law, period. All contracts must show a considerations for both sides, or they are not in any sense a contract, they're just saying someone can do something.
Which is why lawyers always give things away 'for one dollar and other considerations'. If you agree to give them a house for one dollar, then you have a contract with them, and have to give them the house if they give you the dollar. If you just agree to give them the house, you can take that back at any point until you actually give it to them.
If you remove the 'must return code back to the community' part of the GPL, you are left with a 'contract' that only benefits one side, and thus no contract at all. Arguably, all past copying on everyone's part was legal, but you can just write them a nice letter notifying them you're revoking their 'permission form', or whatever you want to call the non-contract they're holding, and, tada, copyright law is back in effect for the code.
The best solution is if the local company spends no money on that, period.
It will then spend that money on other stuff, and/or give it to the owners, who will spend it on other stuff. Money doesn't magically vanish because you fail to spend it on a certain item.
Forget prison. What we need to do is give each recepient of a spam by them a thumbtack, and then let them form a big line in some public place like an stadium, and stab the spammer exactly once, in an arm or a leg or the torso.
When everyone's done with them, they can get medical attention.
Caffeine is both a cure and a cause of headache. Excedrine actually has caffeine in it.
Caffeine does this by expanding the size of the blood vessels in your brain. The trick is there are (at least) two different kinds of headaches...one where blood vessels are too small, and one where they are too large, or there's already too much pressure for other reasons. (Sinus headaches are like that.)
This is also why you can get headaches when coming off an caffeine addition...your body is used to the caffeince expanding your blood vessels.
If you'd studied anthropology or even knew any you'd realize we haven't been hunters and gatherers in a loooong time, and part of the reason was so we could raise livestock.
The only reason hunters and gatherers didn't eat more meat is that it was damn hard to catch sometimes. We solved that problem by growing our own meat, along with our own vegetables, once we figured out how to do that.
Actually, I believe the legal department should read every product's license.
Except that open source software has no end user license in the first place, so there is no license to read.
The article urging lawyers to look it over is crazy, as it doesn't exist. The licenses with open source software are distribution licenses, they explicitly say you do not have to agree to them to use the software.
It really blows my mind that in some companies people think, and lawyers aren't saying they are idiots, that open software is more of a 'risk' installing than legally purchased closed source software...when the latter has licensing terms for use that almost no one has read, and the first has no terms for use.
No, he filed the complaint when he looked at the photo and recognized his bar. Or possibly she mentioned his bar on the radio, and he looked at the photo and confirmed it.
Whatever happened, he didn't complain at the time, so either he didn't notice it or he was okay with it.
I agree it's probably a CYA, but the fact he filed a complaint with the police as a CYA doesn't mean the police should go down and arrest her for a crime without any physical evidence or eyewitnesses.
Do you also think that police should arrest actors shown murdering someone on screen with the exact same amount of physical evidence? (I.e., none.)
That 'bar' could be a set, that image could be computer manipulated, or that may be exactly what it looked like, except photographed after hours. (Yes, I'm aware the bar owner claims otherwise, but he's not in the bar all the time after hours. Maybe they broke in and filmed it, or just bribed someone cleaning up after the owner left.)
You can't arrest someone when your entire evidence (And all the evidence you're ever going to get.) that a crime was even committed was a claim made in public by the person who committed it, which is basically what this is, especially when the purpose of that claim is to sell a product by making it more interesting.
An even better out is to claim the picture was taken when the bar was closed.
Not that it's her job to prove anything. It's the police's job to prove that's a picture of her (Which they possibly can do with photo manipulation experts.), in a certain bar in their jurisdiction (Which they cannot do, it could be a set identical to the bar.), during hours that the bar would be considered public (Which they cannot do at all.), and even then I don't know if it's automatic public nudity...a bar is private property and I don't know why she couldn't be topless, even while the bar was open, if the bar owner didn't mind. I mean, nudist colonies are perfectly legal, and the common area of those are often public in the same way a bar is.
It's completely absurd to arrest someone for a picture of a 'crime' being commited when there's no other evidence of that crime. I mean, there's thousands of actors who should be immediately arrested on murder charges if that was allowable, because, after all, we can see and hear them kill people just by renting a movie.
It's also competely absurd to arrest someone for public nudity without any complaints at all. I think, actually, that should be a requirement for that....a non-police officer should have to complain to the police. If the police come upon a naked guy walking down a stretch of road with no one else in sight, they shouldn't be able to arrest him.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd have to show that the person had done something illegal to get an injunction against them...and getting someone drunk so they'll talk about things they aren't suppose to talk about isn't illegal.
The court will only issue injunctions to prevent someone who did something illegal from profiting from it...they won't issue injunctions to stop trade secrets from being legally 'stolen'.
Also note that if I trick someone else into telling it, while they may be liable, I am not, and can use my knowledge in any way I want. (Which, BTW, is one of the few forms of legal blackmail...I can offer to sign an NDA if they will pay me X amount of money.)
Extortion is not legal blackmail.
No, blackmail is extortion, extortion in general isn't blackmail, and I have no idea what you're talking about.
However, if I (legitimately) learn a trade secret of some company, I can a) forget it, b) use it myself, c) tell the world, or d) tell the company I have it and will sign an NDA for X amount of money.
And all those options are completely legal, and if you look at c and d you'll find out that, yes, you can legally 'blackmail' them or 'extort' them or whatever word you want to use. You can charge them money not to reveal one of their secrets, and I don't know what else to call that except legal blackmail.
You can't 'resecret' a trade secret. You can sue the person who stole it if they stole it illegally, and you can, in theory, prohibit the thief (the person you are suing) from giving it out or using it as part of the suit judgement, with the threat of more punishment if they do.
What you cannot do it get some magical 'back in the bottle' judgement when it's already been given out to anyone else. You cannot stop people who did nothing illegal from using or giving away your trade secret, even if it was 'stolen'.
Trade secrets are basically anti-patents. (Which is why the term 'intellectual property' is stupid.)
With patents, inventers are screwed even if they reinvent it without knowing about the original.
With trade secrets, not only can invent it myself, but I can do everything in my power to learn it from you as long as I obey the law and don't break any signed NDAs.
If I am, to pick a mostly silly but widely used example trade secret, trying to steal the formula to Coke, I not only can subject the drink to chemical analysis, but I can take a tour of the plant with a hidden high-powered camera, I can rifle through their trash, I can get hired as a employee and attempt to learn it that way, I can get an employee drunk, etc. If I do, I win. (Note all companies make you sign an NDA before learning trade secrets, and in some places it's actually part of your employment contract, so you actually can't sign on with them to learn it.)
Also note that if I trick someone else into telling it, while they may be liable, I am not, and can use my knowledge in any way I want. (Which, BTW, is one of the few forms of legal blackmail...I can offer to sign an NDA if they will pay me X amount of money.)
And the trade secret suit was stupid from the start, anyway. You can't protect trade secrets by slapping a EULA on a piece of software, you have to have real contracts with real signatures. To get around being bound by an EULA, legally, is child's play. They did it by being in a country that didn't allow you ban reverse engineering, but you could have done it by simply having someone else click 'I Agree', or gotten a decompressor for the installer and copied the files out manually to reverse engineer. (And, yes, copying the files manually to install the software is completely legal.) Tada, you're not legally bound by the EULA, even if you would have been normally bound by it, which is itself in question because it's imposing terms after the sale.
And since someone could do that, it's automatically not a trade secret, so even if that's not how they break it, it doesn't matter. If you (on purpose) had your company secrets laying in plain sight from the street on a desk, and I can prove it, I didn't steal your 'trade secrets' even if I, personally, happened to get them by breaking into the building and cracking a safe...because they stopped being trade secrets when you failed to try to protect them.(You can fail to protect them, but you have to at least try for them to remain trade secrets.)
Trade secrets have to be real secrets, and you can't just hand out devices that use them willy-nilly in the store. If you walk into court with a 'trade secret' violation and can't immediately produce a list of people who have had authorized access to it and the contracts they signed, you'll get laughed out of court, and it's really amazing the MPAA was able to drag this out this long, probably by conflating it with the supposed DMCA violations, which are utterly unrelated.
Also, you probably shouldn't patent the damn encoder if you are trying to keep the decoder secret, that really doesn't make any sense either.
And the DMCA is copyright law, duh. I'd let that one slip except you obviously had no idea what you were talking about in the first place.
So, you not only replied to an obvious troll, but you replied in such a way that shows you have absolutely no knowledge of the issue.
Coca-Cola contains essense of de-cocainized coca leaves, they have a plant in New Jersey and a special license from the DEA to import coca leaves. If you get the formula, good luck getting a license to import coca leaves, or trying to purchase essence of coca leaves from Coke.
And they like to pretend the secret is a lot better guarded than it is. Half a dozen people in their syrup plant can, and I quote, 'make it while asleep'.
That's probably why they made it the engineering building in the first place...they couldn't find a qualified engineer to design their next building, so decided to train some for the building after that.
If I, however wrongly, believe that, say, owning people is legal, and have a car dealership, and I write a general contract anyone can sign saying you can have my car in exchange for your first born, and people come in and accept it...
And then one of them sues for their kid back...well, he's going to win. The contract required an illegal action on their part. But, and this is the important bit...I get the car back.
Courts can selectively strike down parts of contracts...but they can't strike down the point of a contract, they cannot alter a contract so that one side gets something and the other side gets nothing, because that's an invalid contract, despite what SCO thinks.
That type of contract is simply not possible under contract law, period. All contracts must show a considerations for both sides, or they are not in any sense a contract, they're just saying someone can do something.
Which is why lawyers always give things away 'for one dollar and other considerations'. If you agree to give them a house for one dollar, then you have a contract with them, and have to give them the house if they give you the dollar. If you just agree to give them the house, you can take that back at any point until you actually give it to them.
If you remove the 'must return code back to the community' part of the GPL, you are left with a 'contract' that only benefits one side, and thus no contract at all. Arguably, all past copying on everyone's part was legal, but you can just write them a nice letter notifying them you're revoking their 'permission form', or whatever you want to call the non-contract they're holding, and, tada, copyright law is back in effect for the code.
The best solution is if the local company spends no money on that, period.
It will then spend that money on other stuff, and/or give it to the owners, who will spend it on other stuff. Money doesn't magically vanish because you fail to spend it on a certain item.
How many Americans think the capital of New York is New York City?
When everyone's done with them, they can get medical attention.
If they're still alive.
Which is all well and good until you have use the fucking Frontpage extensions which spaz out when you don't have everything in httpd.conf.
Caffeine does this by expanding the size of the blood vessels in your brain. The trick is there are (at least) two different kinds of headaches...one where blood vessels are too small, and one where they are too large, or there's already too much pressure for other reasons. (Sinus headaches are like that.)
This is also why you can get headaches when coming off an caffeine addition...your body is used to the caffeince expanding your blood vessels.
The only reason hunters and gatherers didn't eat more meat is that it was damn hard to catch sometimes. We solved that problem by growing our own meat, along with our own vegetables, once we figured out how to do that.
There are exactly four people on the planet who are more likely to know who 'International Business Machines' are and not who "IBM' are.
There are easy ways to track each and every spam, if the court system would care to get off its lazy ass and do it.
You need to look in the dicitonray.
In fact, any license that restricts use, and hence requires you to agree to beforehand, is not an open source license.
Except that open source software has no end user license in the first place, so there is no license to read.
The article urging lawyers to look it over is crazy, as it doesn't exist. The licenses with open source software are distribution licenses, they explicitly say you do not have to agree to them to use the software.
It really blows my mind that in some companies people think, and lawyers aren't saying they are idiots, that open software is more of a 'risk' installing than legally purchased closed source software...when the latter has licensing terms for use that almost no one has read, and the first has no terms for use.
Whatever happened, he didn't complain at the time, so either he didn't notice it or he was okay with it.
I agree it's probably a CYA, but the fact he filed a complaint with the police as a CYA doesn't mean the police should go down and arrest her for a crime without any physical evidence or eyewitnesses.
How do you lack anything in a lewd manner?
*checks to make sure he doesn't lewdly lack a signature*
That 'bar' could be a set, that image could be computer manipulated, or that may be exactly what it looked like, except photographed after hours. (Yes, I'm aware the bar owner claims otherwise, but he's not in the bar all the time after hours. Maybe they broke in and filmed it, or just bribed someone cleaning up after the owner left.)
You can't arrest someone when your entire evidence (And all the evidence you're ever going to get.) that a crime was even committed was a claim made in public by the person who committed it, which is basically what this is, especially when the purpose of that claim is to sell a product by making it more interesting.
There no crime in lying on her website. She's perfectly allowed to lie to the public about the orgins of her pictures.
Not that it's her job to prove anything. It's the police's job to prove that's a picture of her (Which they possibly can do with photo manipulation experts.), in a certain bar in their jurisdiction (Which they cannot do, it could be a set identical to the bar.), during hours that the bar would be considered public (Which they cannot do at all.), and even then I don't know if it's automatic public nudity...a bar is private property and I don't know why she couldn't be topless, even while the bar was open, if the bar owner didn't mind. I mean, nudist colonies are perfectly legal, and the common area of those are often public in the same way a bar is.
It's completely absurd to arrest someone for a picture of a 'crime' being commited when there's no other evidence of that crime. I mean, there's thousands of actors who should be immediately arrested on murder charges if that was allowable, because, after all, we can see and hear them kill people just by renting a movie.
It's also competely absurd to arrest someone for public nudity without any complaints at all. I think, actually, that should be a requirement for that....a non-police officer should have to complain to the police. If the police come upon a naked guy walking down a stretch of road with no one else in sight, they shouldn't be able to arrest him.
That said, there's nothing stopping you from breaking the compile on Unixware and OpenServer.