🚀 go-pugleaf

I tried to keep quiet to get back to sci.crypt, but...

In article <1992Dec29.003205.19992@unislc.uucp> erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) writes:
> ...
>  While it is true that
>publishing something doesn't automatically make it public domain, in some
>cases it may seriously weaken any claims of patent infringement.  Not all,
>of course, otherwise nothing would ever be published.  :)
>
>On proprietary non-disclosed material, the restrictions on disclosure must be
>fairly exacting, else one loses the protection afforded by declaring
>something a "trade secret".  Consider the Datapoint case of several years
>back.  Two programmers who had worked for Datapoint walked out with listings
>of Datapoint DOS, rekeyed it, then sold it.  The courts said that because
>Datapoint hadn't taken steps to protect their copyrighted material (like
>restricting access to listings and source code) they lost the protections
>afforded herein.

You are (a) confused on the laws, and (b) confusing patents, copyrights,
and trade secrets.

1. Publishing something NEVER places it into the public domain UNLESS
you publish is with a statement to that effect.

2. Various country's patent laws have different restrictions on when
and how you must apply for a patent.  For example, in the U.S., you can
publish something before applying for the patent -- but the clock
starts ticking to when you must file or it's too late.  In other countries,
if you publish before filing, you lose -- you can not file after that time.

3. Copyrights are VERY different from patents.  Too much to say here
except that basically patents protect the idea while copyrights protect
the expression of the idea but not the idea itself.

4. The Datapoint case mixes employment contracts, trade secrets, and
copyrights -- but we were talking about the RSA *patent*.

I suggest that you obtain a better understanding of intellectual
property issues.


-- 
Glenn Tenney
voice: (415) 574-3420      fax: (415) 574-0546
tenney@netcom.com          Ham radio: AA6ER