anseljh

Fun fact: there is also no express patent license in GPLv2. There have been lawsuits on that. I know because I was the lawyer who filed one of them. So...yeah, this problem is not hypothetical.

Nope. Typography was an excellent vessel for a history lesson here.

Yes, federal magistrate judges.

Check out "Asc"'s comment:

"There are adblocker-blocker-blockers definition lists... if you can make sense of that. In other words, there are subscriptions (as simple as checking a box in the ad blocker options) that block the scripts that detect that someone has an ad blocker on."

Quite the arms race!

Interesting!

Notably, "Percentage of Requests Where Some Data Produced" is all 0%.

Well, everyone would be able to use YC Research's public outputs defensively as prior art.

Did you read the post?

Why isn't this the default?

Try another point of view. If this review was done outside the case, then it would very likely have to be re-done later IN the case with expert witnesses who are disclosed to the other side through the formal discovery process. It's not crazy to want to avoid duplicating that cost. Also, they can challenge Shred's expert in court if they don't like who you pick.

And...I saw the court filings...you have a lawyer...stop talking to randos on HN for advice. :)

I admit, my attention was divided earlier between Hacker News and my day job as a California IP litigator.

Here you go:

Yes, the UTSA statute is "the law". But it's not the ONLY law. Where there are gaps, courts look to case law, just like in any other area of law. And the UTSA was drafted with the old common law in mind, continuing much of it, but codifying it. That's why courts DO look at the older common law to inform their interpretations of the UTSA.

This is from page 1 of the Prefatory Note in the 1985 final draft of the UTSA:

"The Uniform Act codifies the basic principles of common law trade secret protection, preserving its essential distinctions from patent law."

With that, I'm done with this thread. We are way off-topic since the lawsuit in the original post doesn't even have a trade secret claim. I'm also done dispensing free legal advice for the night.

Well, good thing you're not my client. :)