4 IV SCOX 1117: Re: The Dynix License Arrangements and SOIP << Prev Next >>
by: ColonelZen	IP: 238.96	rated: 0-0	posted: 2006-09-20 19:20:51
Message: 1117 of 6911 posted 7/20/2006 7:10:39 PM   Author: ColonelZen   Subject: Re: The Dynix License Arrangements and SOIP   Sentiment:   Posted as a reply to: msg 1108 by jldill22       >>>   A further technical point should be made that I think is especially apropos a transfer of right that is not a merger, any disclosure to IBM by Sequent of information Sequent was required to to keep confidential would technically be a breach of that confidentiality obligation and there is no apparent exception for a transferee of Sequent's rights under those agreements.   <<<     Shiney object IP theory at it's best!     For there to be a valid tort in the eyes of the court, IBM had to do some act regarding *something* that the court recognises. Well nobody stabbed anybody, nobody stole anything, to the alleged tortuous act is pure information, "intellectual property". Patents, copyrights or trade secrets.     SCOX doesn't have patents.     SCOX doesn't own the copyrights to Dynix.     The Hatchling averred in December 2003 that there are no trade secrets at issue.     Your (and SCOX's) Shiney Object IP as a mixture of Copyright, Trade Secret and Secret Sauce falls down as copyright law *clearly* gives right to authorize reproduction to the copyright owner. One can sell the right to authorize others to reproduce et al, but I think the court would have a hard time believing that there is a separable right to forbid authorization of reproduction and that SCOX somehow inherited this before the fact.     Similarly with Trade Secrets, even aside from the Hatchling's egg. "The UTSA defines a 'trade secret' to mean 'information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.'" (http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1669). Your (SCOX's) problem here is that the owner of the alleged Trade Secret decided that these "methods and concepts" had greater economic value being "generally known" rather than not, and clearly did not exert efforts to maintain its secrecy. Ergo the owner of the alleged Trade Secrets did not treat them as Trade Secrets, thus they were not.     And if the "methods and concepts" were not trade secret, copyright, or patent, then the court is not required to recognise their existance and hence need not recognise any "act" regarding them as tortuous or even subject to its jurisdiction.     In point of fact if the court DID look at the shiney object an nod it's head it would give IBM hellacious grounds for appeal. IBM did not know at the time of the contracts that there was a "Shiney Object IP" justicable by the courts.     -- TWZ