Outline of Amicus Brief: Pavlovich v
Outline of Amicus Brief: Pavlovich v
Outline of Amicus Brief: Pavlovich v
- No tags were found...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 481-82, 493 (1974) (discussing the broad policies<br />
supporting trade secret law); Ford Motor Co. v. Lane, 67 F. Supp. 2d at<br />
749. Where a preliminary injunction prohibiting disclosure is targeted at a<br />
third party republisher who lawfully obtained the information, those<br />
interests are not served. See Bunner’s Answer <strong>Brief</strong> at 27-31. Moreover,<br />
where a preliminary injunction against a third party republisher is unlikely<br />
to further those interests because the alleged trade secret has already been<br />
widely disclosed, the issuance <strong>of</strong> such an injunction is not only improper as<br />
a matter <strong>of</strong> trade secret law; its issuance is prohibited by the First<br />
Amendment.<br />
II.<br />
THE INJUNCTION BEFORE THIS COURT IS NOT NARROWLY<br />
TAILORED TO FURTHER A STATE INTEREST OF THE<br />
HIGHEST ORDER<br />
A. The Injunction In This Case Cannot Be Squared With The Supreme<br />
Court’s Decision In Bartnicki v. Vopper.<br />
The case before this Court is not a typical trade secret case. First,<br />
whatever merit there may be to DVD CCA’s claim that DeCSS is the<br />
product <strong>of</strong> a violation <strong>of</strong> trade secret law, Andrew Bunner did not<br />
participate in its creation nor could he in any way be considered to be in<br />
privity with its creator. He simply obtained the program from a publicly<br />
available source.<br />
16