Software Buyers Not Liable For Trade Secrets In Compiled Source Code
from the good-ruling dept
Mark B points us to an interesting and well-written ruling in a lawsuit where Silvaco Data Systems lost its argument that Intel and others could be found liable for violating Silvaco's trade secrets, because those companies purchased software from another company who had violated Silvaco's trade secrets.The quick background is that another company -- Circuit Semantics Inc., (CSI) -- has apparently used trade secrets from Silvaco in creating its software. Silvaco won its lawsuit against Circuit Semantics, barring further sale of its code. Silvaco then sued buyers of CSI's code, including Intel, claiming that they, via CSI, had also violated Silvaco's trade secrets. The ruling against Silvaco is well argued and smashes Silvaco's argument -- noting the difference between the source code, which contained the trade secrets, and the compiled software, which Intel obtained. The judge points out how silly Silvaco's arguments are repeatedly, calling one of the main arguments "a smokescreen, a red herring, a straw man," and later saying of Silvaco's argument: "strained is too small a word to describe Silvaco's argument." You can read the full decision here:
Although this case was decided largely on the pleadings, it has somehow generated an appendix over 8000 pages in length. Seldom have so many trees died for so little. We see three causes for this wretched excess....It then goes on to detail three different bad choices made by the lawyers which made the filings so ridiculously large. Basically, the lawyers seemed to throw in all sorts of things that weren't necessary, and which the judges could have easily been pointed to that information to retrieve on their own.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: compiled code, trade secrets
Companies: csi, intel, silvaco
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A little troubling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little troubling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A little troubling
But this is about software that someone purchased, not that they wrote. The liability needs to stay with the person who wrote it, regardless of whether it's compiled pre-purchase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A little troubling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A little troubling
The fact that the code was compiled vs not compiled shouldn't even enter the discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A little troubling
Step by step:
1. Create 'dummy' company.
2. Dummy company steals some trade secrets, makes program(s) with said secrets.
3. Dummy company sells program(s) to you.
4. Your stolen trade secrets are now laundered!
...
(6. Profit.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A little troubling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A little troubling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A little troubling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A little troubling
Trials are for sorting out such details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A little troubling
So we're going to hold them responsible for patents they often won't know about?
Often times I find that you can't know of all the patents apply to your software, and that even if you're the first to think of a particular solution it's already covered by a number of overly broad patents. And you think this is a good system to have? Fuck you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A little troubling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A little troubling
Since it obviously takes a lot of time, resources, and arguments to help convince a court one way or the other during a suit, and since no one can go through those costs and analysis on a per patent basis for all of your creations and all patents, it should be clear that groups can invest a whole lot of money and time building something very useful and desirable, and thinking they are safe, only to eventually (after a lot more money and time spent) find out it was all for a waste.
It should be obvious, then, that you really can't resolve if you are safe despite putting in a significant amount of work, time, and money trying.
So the option is to build nothing or at least no more than you are willing to have shut out from use at any point in time when a patent owner pops their head up.
[Why are we restricting the freedoms and creative output of so many people? And why are we blocking paths that will be revealed to many people, when there may not be many other viable paths and to give a single person exclusive control? Why restrictions? Two or more people can come up with and exploit the same idea at the same time and frequently in a very similar way (unlike is possible with most physical materials).]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A little troubling
The united states corporations have pretty much mastered how to scam the consumer without letting them directly know how they are being scammed and making them think there is true competition. Our mainstream media never covers any of these issues and when you buy things at the store you are given the appearance of competition.
But in reality everything is monopolized. There maybe two different devices that play MP3's, one perhaps is an IPod and another is a Zune, so you are given the appearance of competition. But both cover some of the same patents and when these corporations cross license their patents they are essentially acting like a cartel, keeping out any new competitors, and the consumer is essentially stuck with monopoly prices. Or some company will charge another company a monopoly licensing fees to sell a product (ie: a patent lawsuit settlement or victory) and the consumer, thinking there is competition when they go to the store, indirectly pays monopoly prices at the mercy of the patent holder.
We are only given the appearance of competition, but in reality the system of patent cross licensing at the exclusion of newcomers works like a cartel. Companies either only cross license to the extent that it maximizes their collective monopoly rents of those involved in the licensing deals or they charge huge licensing fees to competitors who want to license a patent, fees that ultimately maximizes the monopoly rents of the patent holder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The EPA ought to demand fines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BIOS Virgins
Before Patents on computer code, when progress was almost everyday in the PC software arena.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Compiled Source Code
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HA!
All we ever heard was the 'BILLIONS' he was going to win and then how he was going to take over the world.
Wonder how many products he stole from other companies. As a witness, I saw plenty illegal shit going on.
Maybe this will shut Pesic up for a while, although somehow, I doubt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HA!
All we ever heard was the 'BILLIONS' he was going to win and then how he was going to take over the world.
Wonder how many products he stole from other companies. As a witness, I saw plenty illegal shit going on.
Maybe this will shut Pesic up for a while, although somehow, I doubt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOVE IT!!! From one ex to another!
Not to worry- he's already dreaming up more ways to illegally embezzle money from someone by abusing a court system he thinks belongs to him!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]