🚀 go-pugleaf

> I had heard that the whole reason for the new Coke was that Coke
> was approaching 99 years old.  This magic number ties in with
> the trade-secret laws.  After a point in time, not only will the
> fomula for coke not be a trade-secret but the company will be
> forced to make the formula available to others.

Coke may be approaching 99 years old, but the notion about the "trade
secret laws" turns out not to be the case.  There *are* no "trade
secret" laws.  "Trade secrets" are simply processes and/or methods that
are (surprise) *secret*.  It would be a little silly for there to be
laws requiring disclosure of trade secrets, and it would be more than a
little contrary to  (assume-deep-slick-politician-sytle-voice) our great
amurricun system of governmunt (resume-normal-voice).

Thus, trade secrets only expire when the coke is let out of the bag, so
to speak.  Now *patents* are another thing altogether.  Note that it is
*not possible* to patent a trade secret.  (Why this is is left as an
excersize for the reader.)

(Also note that though the corporation may be 99 years old, the "old
coke" or "classic coke" formula is somewhat younger.  As others have
mentioned, the original coke had *coke* in it, and was changed when this
became illegal.  Caffene was substituted for the cocain at that time.
Anybody know exactly when this occured?)
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw