Adding my voice to those responding to John Levine, the claim by Ibbotsen seems specious. It would be interesting to know the basis for their belief that the number is "proprietary." They may be confusing their methodology for deriving that number, which could very well be a "proprietary" trade secret, with the results or output of the methodology. That too, might be protectable, conceivably as a trade secret but more likely as a matter of contract with their clients/subscribers (I'm not sure how they provide this information). But once they publish the number, or acquiesce while their clients (presumably this is Vanguard) publish it, I just can't see how they can hope to put the cat back in the bag. And if your friend obtained the number from a public source and not pursuant to some confidential relationship with Ibbotsen or from someone in a confidential relationship with Ibbotsen I don't see a basis for liability. Potentially there's a separate issue about attribution -- maybe they'd like credit, maybe not. Maybe that could be negotiated. Generally I can't imagine Ibbotsen bringing a lawsuit over this, it falls into the "send them a nasty letter" category , the risks of a lawsuit greatly exceed any potential benefits by way of damages or protection of their business.
Kerry L. Konrad
<k_konrad[_at_]stblaw.com>
Received on Wed Feb 03 1999 - 15:01:10 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:34 GMT