From: Ernest Hua <hua@chromatic.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 08:51:54 +0800
To: jrochkin@cs.oberlin.edu (Jonathan Rochkind)
Subject: Re: RC2 Source Code - Legal Warning from RSADSI
In-Reply-To: <ad36b3ea020210044647@[132.162.233.188]>
Message-ID: <199602020011.QAA24870@chromatic.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> > WARNING NOTICE
> >
> >        It has recently come to the attention of RSA Data
> > Security, Inc. that certain of its confidential and
> > proprietary source code has been misappropriated and
> > disclosed.  Despite such unauthorized use and disclosure,
> > RSA Data Security reserves all intellectual property rights
> > in such source code under applicable law, including without
> > limitation trade secret and copyright protection.  In
> 
> Well, now we know it really was RC2.
> 
> Is there a law-knowing type out there who can tell us what's going on
> legally?  As I understand things, RSA is just bullshitting here.  When
> something has 'trade secret' status, the only people with legal obligations
> toward it are those with contractual obligations to RSA--you can only
> enforce 'trade secrets' through contractual obligations, non-disclosure and
> confidentiality agreements, etc.  Once something has been disclosed, as I
> understand it,  people without contractual obligations in regards to it are
> free to do whatever they want to it--trade secret status of RC2 has nothing
> to do with me, who has no contractual obligations to RSA regarding RC2.
> (Unless the license agreement for RSAref could be stretched to apply
> somehow, but I don't think so).

Uh ... wait ... better check on the stupid Scientology cases because
they did win some small battles regarding what they considered trade
secrets.  Did they win that on copyright basis or trade secret basis?

There must be some case history here.

Ern