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.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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.