Re: reverse engineering a color?

From: Buford Terrell <terrell[_at_]gateway.stcl.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 15:51:22 -0600

> 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>

It would not also prevent a stranger to the purchase from using a scanner on the dried paint or analyzing a chip that he picked up.

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

Buford C. Terrell                       1303 San Jacinto Street
Professor of Law                              Houston, TX 77002
South Texas College of Law                voice   (713)646-1857
terrell[_at_]stcl.edu                            fax   (713)646-1766

                 WARNING: Objects in your future are
                          closer than they appear

[T]he strength of our liberty depends on the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects."

                            --ACLU v. Reno

Received on Thu Oct 31 1996 - 21:23:47 GMT