The reason is simple - in our complaint, we are asking for our fees to be reimbursed by the defendants. If we were to accept funds, and fees were to be granted, then what?
It wouldn't be right for us to keep it.
As I said before, if ever the time should come where we can't do it ourselves, we'll let everyone know.
IANAL, but Trade Secret protection expires when a secret is exposed publicly... damages can be collected from the person who was under duty to not release the information, but released it anyway.
For Intellectual Property to be treated as a Trade Secret, certain safeguards must be taken. The recipe for coke (the drinking kind) is a trade secret. Few people know the recipe, it is kept under lock and key, and all the folks that know it are under a non-disclosure agreement.
Did the paper boy sign and NDA? Did the person running the proofs at the end of the printing press?
Trade Secrets have to be treated as such, or they are not trade secrets.
I can assure you that the legal fees are being paid 100% out of pocket. There is no pro bono representation this year, although we did use pro bono counsel last year.
Many folks on FatWallet have offered financial assistance, but we are not accepting any of it. If the time were to come where additional funds would be required, we would first look to other businesses that would be benefited by the suit, and as a last resort to consumers themselves.
Thanks for your comments, however off base they may be.
The issue at hand is that Best Buy filed a DMCA notice - not a c&d. This means that they are claiming copyrihght on the information.
A DMCA notification allows the notifier to subpoena the information regardless of the merit of the copyright claim, that is the issue we are dealing with here.
If this were another type of Intellectual property issue, such as trade secret, Best Buy would have to file a lawsuit against the John Doe, and then subpoena the information based upon the lawsuit.
However, in this case, it appears as though the information was available elsewhere before it was posted on FatWallet, which it could be argued that the information was already "in the public", so the trade secret claims would be tough to prove.
Any intellectual property claim would be against the person making the post on our site, as we would have immunity thanks to the commudications decency act.
Wanted to make a couple points perfectly clear.
When we rec'd the dmca notification and electronic delivery of a copy of a subpoena, it was late on Friday night. To be on the safe side, we acted to remove the specified information to remove any potential liability. (as legal counsel was not immediately available for guidance)
Saturday was spent putting together the legal team, the real work starts tonight and tomorrow.
Last year, Wal-Mart backed down before we filed our Motion to Quash - it remains to be seen what Best Buy's attitude will be in the battle of intellectual property counsel.
We certainly do not believe that there is a legitimate copyright issue at hand, but as I had stated to Best Buy before information was even posted on our site, the potential for "trade secret" does exist here, but it is their responsibility to protect their intellectual property. Once a trade secret is made public, trade secret protection is no longer available.
I am not a lawyer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night - But this is where the current thought pattern is - stay tuned for more details early this week.
Tim Storm
President
FatWallet, inc.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason is simple - in our complaint, we are asking for our fees to be reimbursed by the defendants. If we were to accept funds, and fees were to be granted, then what?
It wouldn't be right for us to keep it.
As I said before, if ever the time should come where we can't do it ourselves, we'll let everyone know.
IANAL, but Trade Secret protection expires when a secret is exposed publicly... damages can be collected from the person who was under duty to not release the information, but released it anyway.
For Intellectual Property to be treated as a Trade Secret, certain safeguards must be taken. The recipe for coke (the drinking kind) is a trade secret. Few people know the recipe, it is kept under lock and key, and all the folks that know it are under a non-disclosure agreement.
Did the paper boy sign and NDA? Did the person running the proofs at the end of the printing press?
Trade Secrets have to be treated as such, or they are not trade secrets.
I can assure you that the legal fees are being paid 100% out of pocket. There is no pro bono representation this year, although we did use pro bono counsel last year.
Many folks on FatWallet have offered financial assistance, but we are not accepting any of it. If the time were to come where additional funds would be required, we would first look to other businesses that would be benefited by the suit, and as a last resort to consumers themselves.
Make that Communications, not commudications
Thanks for your comments, however off base they may be.
The issue at hand is that Best Buy filed a DMCA notice - not a c&d. This means that they are claiming copyrihght on the information.
A DMCA notification allows the notifier to subpoena the information regardless of the merit of the copyright claim, that is the issue we are dealing with here.
If this were another type of Intellectual property issue, such as trade secret, Best Buy would have to file a lawsuit against the John Doe, and then subpoena the information based upon the lawsuit.
However, in this case, it appears as though the information was available elsewhere before it was posted on FatWallet, which it could be argued that the information was already "in the public", so the trade secret claims would be tough to prove.
Any intellectual property claim would be against the person making the post on our site, as we would have immunity thanks to the commudications decency act.
Thanks again for your comments
Tim Storm FatWallet, inc.
Wanted to make a couple points perfectly clear. When we rec'd the dmca notification and electronic delivery of a copy of a subpoena, it was late on Friday night. To be on the safe side, we acted to remove the specified information to remove any potential liability. (as legal counsel was not immediately available for guidance) Saturday was spent putting together the legal team, the real work starts tonight and tomorrow. Last year, Wal-Mart backed down before we filed our Motion to Quash - it remains to be seen what Best Buy's attitude will be in the battle of intellectual property counsel. We certainly do not believe that there is a legitimate copyright issue at hand, but as I had stated to Best Buy before information was even posted on our site, the potential for "trade secret" does exist here, but it is their responsibility to protect their intellectual property. Once a trade secret is made public, trade secret protection is no longer available. I am not a lawyer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night - But this is where the current thought pattern is - stay tuned for more details early this week. Tim Storm President FatWallet, inc.