Re: NBA v. Motorola

From: Buford Terrell <terrell[_at_]gateway.stcl.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:28:11 -0600

On 2/11/97, Vance R. Koven <vrkoven[_at_]world.std.com> wrote:
>
> I'm still a bit troubled by the notion that the Copyright Act makes
> it impossible to *prevent* dissemination, or its corollary, prevent
> uncompensated dissemination, of "facts" once they are incorporated
> into a copyrighted expression. After all, that's what most state
> trade secret law is about. I don't think you'd get much assent to the
> proposition that a trade secret reduced to copyrighted form makes the
> underlying matter unprotectable (although I grant that if the owner
> of the trade secret publicizes it it isn't a secret any more).
>
> Isn't the real thrust of the NBA case that New York really cannot
> continue to protect misappropriation, regardless of context? And in
> that light, hasn't the Second Circuit really, despite what it says,
> undermined the rationale of INS?

That's the whole point. NBA didn't keep the game secret. They sold tickets so that outsiders could learn the facts. If the NBA wanted to play their games in closed gyms with no one in attendence, they could keep them secret under state law. They simply can't make them public and keep them private at the same time.

-=-=-=--=-=-=--=-=-=--=-=-=--=-=-=--=-=-=--=-=-=--=-=-=--=-=-=-

Buford C. Terrell                           CAUTION:
Professor of Law                            Objects in your
South Texas College of Law                  future
1303 San Jacinto                            are closer than
Houston, Texas 77002                        they appear!

(713)646-1857
terrell[_at_]stcl.edu Received on Wed Feb 12 1997 - 18:31:07 GMT