Re: reverse engineering a color?

This is sort of what I was trying to emphasize. Any software license I've ever seen (the stuff you buy in stores, mail-order, etc.) says the software is a trade secret, with an implication that that's why you can't do certain things. For instance, an Apple Computer license for its system software has the following clause:

Restrictions: The Apple Software contains copyrighted material, trade secrets and other proprietary material and in order to protect them you may not decompile, reverse engineer, [etc.]

I'm not a trade secret expert (in fact I'm not an expert in anything:) but it's hard for me to see how something so widely disseminated can be a trade secret. Is this just thrown in to scare people above and beyond the copyright notice?

Gerry Bluhm
gbluhm[_at_]cfa.harvard.edu

Harold Federow wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, gbluhm[_at_]galapagos.harvard.edu (Gerald M. Bluhm) wrote:
> >
> > Greg S. MacGowan <greg.macgowan[_at_]law.uc.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> You're suggesting that we make colors copyrightable. Probably not a good
> >> idea. (-:
> >
> > How about trade secret law? Suppose there were an express license on
> > the exterior of the paint can stating that the particular mixture
> > was a trade secret and opening the can was the user's manifestation
> > of acceptance of the license to use, but not analyze, the paint...?
>
> I doubt that would fit the definition of secrecy in the Uniform Trade
> Secret Act--it would paint too many people into a corner (sorry,
> couldn't resist).
>
> Harold Federow
> <hfederow[_at_]u.washington.edu>
Received on Thu Oct 31 1996 - 16:43:59 GMT