Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 14th Jan 2010 23:08 UTC
Permalink for comment 404233
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-14
I am not sure how legal that letter really is. While the statutes is states are true, it makes a few assumptions. First, just because I might have evidence of a trade secret, doesn't automatically make it protected. Thats the gotcha for using trade secrets. The only protections on it are the secrecy. What if someone took a picture of an Apple tablet in public? That picture wouldn't be protected. Further, not everyone who may have evidence may have signed an NDA. As such they are not bound by law from talking about what they know. They have to be making these things somewhere don't they? Then there are free speech issues here, which could go either way.