Let's see some more cola hypocrisy 1828

First off, the court didn't specifically rule on source code. But you know what, I'll even give that to you for fee. In some areas, keeping source code secret *is* important to profitability; many commercial games, for example. (It's not an *eternal* necessity, of course; iD Software gets plenty of profit even as they release the source code of their older games under the GPL.)

Now, as to your specific troll about the courts stating that 'proprietary information... is essential... to innovation' (note all the ellipses I had to insert in what you quoted to get anything like what you said) of course I disagree with that. But, of course, even the court didn't say that, they said that was 'generally' true, which shows that even the court believes there are exceptions. I personally think there are a lot more 'exceptions' than the judge recognizes, but thats a disagreement in degree, not kind.

And, of course, the point you quoted is not central to the case (where the defense alleged that they had journalistic protection not to reveal sources, and the court ruled that journalistic protection, even if it applied, did not protect them when the information had been provided illegally). It is what is called in legal terms 'dicta', something stated by the court as an opinion that is *not* binding on lower courts. So, of course, we can disagree (in some particulars) with the dicta without having a problem with the ruling itself. -- Sincerely,

Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317

"Windows XP... is the 'most reliable Windows ever'. To me, this like saying that asparagus is 'the most articulate vegetable ever'." - Dave Barry