Hmmm. Before I spill the beans any more, maybe I just ought to talk with the IBM legal department.
Regards,
jimmo
I would definately encourage you to do so. The case examples related to dilegence in protecting and securing ones trade secrets explicitly used the scenario of access parameters and industrial espionage. Given that you had access to pretty much anything you wanted (if I'm reading you right) then it can be assumed that this may have very well been common place. If this is the case then it can also be assumed that any level of employee had access as well regardless of the projects they were assigned and level of authority they had. In this case I would tend to strongly suggest, by action/omittion of action, that those at SCO did not concern themselves with the proper steps to "protect" their property. In this event if SCO hired a contractor/subcontractor and allowed then carte blanche access to the code/property it is therefore assume that if this person divulged or used this information to another party outside of SCO it may have been a violation of an NDA but also negated SCO rights of protect to the property due to neglegent practices. I mean lets be serious. If I set my TV on the front lawn by the sidewalk and then two days later see it gone, what do you think the courts would do to someone that took this? At most they'd probably tell the guy to give back the TV and that would be the end of it.... Certainly wouldn't prosecute him/her for larcony or any real intent to commit an offense or crime. It reminds me of the Law proffessor that begins a lecture and at the beginning has the TA bring out a white horse. The professor is lecturing about the days subject and never acknowledges the white hores except briefly at the start by saying "ignore the horse". Then halfway through the lecture the Prof moves onto the topic of evidence and knowledge. In doing this he address the presence of the white horse saying that just becuase you tell a jury to disregard a statement or piece of evidence, you have already introduced a confounder to the case and it cannot be reasonably assume the the jury and others will be able to "forget" or "ignore" what was said or presented. In the case of securing IP and trade secrets the same premise applies. If it, in the course of exposure to assest, becomes knowledgable that something exists, it is encumbant upon the owner to secure this from those that may potentially utilize such knowledge. In failure to do so there is no reasonable expectation that once this becomes knowledge that the owner can control the use of that knowledge unless extordinary measures were taken to obtain it in the first place. In otherwords, if you don't do much to lock it down and make sure that only those with the "need to know" can acquire this info then it is assumed that it is commonly accessible and therefore deemed common knowledge. Cheers, Curtis.