281:, and were necessary to serve a "significant government interest" (protecting a trade secret). Additionally, CSS was not a subject of public concern and therefore are not subjected to stricter scrutiny. Based on all these findings, the Supreme Court of California remanded for the Court of Appeal to reevaluate the validity of the trade secret claims to decide whether the injunction should be granted or not. Thus, the narrow question before the Supreme Court of California was whether the preliminary injunction violated Bunner's right to free speech under the United States and California Constitutions even though DVD CCA was presumed likely to prevail on its trade secret claim against Bunner.
39:
256:, but did not prohibit the defendants from linking to other websites containing relevant information or using DeCSS explicitly. The court found that CSS was a trade secret that has been well guarded for three years prior to the disclosure of DeCSS, and it was obtained through reverse engineering which was expressly disallowed by the licensing terms of the CSS. In addition, the Court held that further dissemination of the CSS keys and the DeCSS software would lead to
355:. He stated that First Amendment protections needed to be balanced against the theft and distribution of intellectual property, as well as the DVD CCA's optimism regarding a ruling in their favor, and that the organization would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court should the decision go the other way.
94:
Superior Court of
California issued an injunction against defendants' distribution of Plaintiff's alleged trade secret in CSS. California Court of Appeal reversed and held that the injunction unduly restrained defendants' First Amendment rights of free speech. The California Supreme Court reversed,
327:
In sum, the DVD CCA had failed to establish that the information Bunner republished was still secret at the time he republished it on his website. The trial court's view of this case was colored by the content of the information that DeCSS is designed to circumvent the encryption of DVDs. But the
268:
Both the
California Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California reviewed this case on the First Amendment grounds. The central issue was whether the injunction violated Bunner's right to free speech assuming DVD CCA likely had a valid trade secret claim. The two courts expressed different
289:
Under
California’s version of the UTSA, a trade secret consists of "information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other
184:
Finally, on
February 27, 2004, the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District concluded that the CSS technology had lost its trade secret status. Therefore, the preliminary injunction burdened more speech than necessary. The granting of the preliminary injunction was therefore reversed.
347:: "This has nothing to do with DVDs, or this particular technology, or with how technology is distributed. are arguing that you can't issue injunctions under First Amendment, and we think that is contrary to the way laws have been interpreted for the past 200 years", said
323:
The Court of Appeal reevaluated the case solely based on trade secret claims, and ruled for Bunner again. It decided that by the time the case was filed, CSS has lost its trade secret status, because it was widely circulated on the
Internet.
118:
On remand, the
California Court of Appeal found that there was not enough evidence to support that CCS was still a trade secret at the time of the injunction. Thus the previously granted injunction unnecessarily burdened free speech and was
318:
Discloses or uses, without consent, another's trade secret that the person, "before a material change of his or her position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or
235:
demanding the removal of the DeCSS program. The website owners and their service providers did not comply. DVD CCA filed suit against Bunner and others collectively, accusing them of misappropriation of trade secrets and seeking an
303:
Discloses or uses, without consent, another's trade secret that the person, "at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know, that his or her knowledge of the trade secret" satisfied any of the following conditions:
340:, which was "thrilled" by the Court of Appeal's final decision, praised it as a vindication of "what we have long said"—the fact that DeCSS "has been available on thousands of websites around the world for many years".
165:. The preliminary injunction was granted to the plaintiff on January 20, 2000. The defendants appealed to the California Court of Appeal, claiming that the lower court's decision unnecessarily restrained Bunner's
269:
opinions. The Court of Appeal held that the injunction violated Bunner's free speech rights under the First
Amendment and reversed the Superior Court's injunction. According to the Court of Appeal, DeCSS was "
276:
The
Supreme Court of California overturned that decision. It recognized that computer programs are subject to Free Speech protection. However, in this case, the restrictions placed by the injunction were
173:. The Supreme Court of California held that although dissemination of computer code is protected free speech, the First Amendment does not prohibit courts from enjoining speech to protect a legitimate
95:
finding that the injunction did not necessarily burden free speech, and remanded to the
California Court of Appeal to determine the validity of the trade secret misappropriation claim.
290:
persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy".
161:. The court initially found CSS to be a reasonably guarded trade secret and that its trade secret status should not be destroyed simply because it was posted on the
343:
Prior to the
California Supreme Court's ruling, attorneys for the DVD CCA felt that the issues at stake in their appeal had broader implications for protection of
472:
377:
278:
181:
for the Appellate Court to "make an independent examination of the entire record" to determine whether there was misappropriation of trade secret.
405:
429:
328:
fact that the information at issue was being used for decrypting purposes was not significant from the standpoint of trade secret law.
492:
522:
450:
527:
300:
Discloses or uses, without consent, another's trade secret that the person "used improper means to acquire knowledge of"
517:
297:
Acquires another's trade secret with knowledge or reason to know "that the trade secret was acquired by improper means"
313:
Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use
151:
158:
17:
469:
374:
512:
337:
169:
free speech rights. The Appellate Court agreed with Bunner, which led to a further appeal by DVD CCA to the
228:. Andrew Bunner and many others became aware of this program and reposted copies of DeCSS on the Internet.
135:
240:
to prevent them from using or distributing DeCSS or from linking to other websites that disclosed DeCSS.
170:
150:. The case went through several rounds of appeals and was last heard and decided in February 2004 by the
49:
157:
DVD CCA's alleged trade secret was its "content scramble system" (CSS). The case was first heard in the
402:
352:
232:
147:
260:
to the plaintiff, whereas the impact to remove the software posed minimal impact to the defendants.
178:
426:
249:
344:
78:
310:
Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use
8:
209:
38:
437:, 116 Cal. App. 4th 241, 10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 185, 69 U.S.P.Q.2d 1907 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
385:, 93 Cal. App. 4th 648, 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 338, 60 U.S.P.Q.2d 1803 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).
348:
257:
177:. It found that the preliminary injunction did not violate the free speech clauses and
447:
476:
454:
433:
413:, 31 Cal. 4th 864, 4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 69, 75 P.3d 1, 68 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (Cal. 2003).
409:
381:
166:
231:
After discovering these posts, DVD CCA sent notices to these websites and their
205:
200:
video disc, essentially circumventing CSS. It was originally written to enable
174:
307:
Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it
293:
Trade secret misappropriation occurs when somebody does one of the following:
506:
143:
221:
213:
270:
217:
252:
to stop distribution of the DeCSS program and the keys or algorithms of
237:
139:
273:", and the injunction was an invalid prior restraint on pure speech.
225:
162:
142:, accusing Andrew Bunner and several others of misappropriation of
131:
201:
193:
224:
of the program spread quickly, in part due to an article by
253:
197:
196:
is a computer program capable of decrypting content on a
284:
60:
DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Andrew Bunner
212:
existing DVD players. It was posted on a website by
159:Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County
152:California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District
504:
397:
395:
393:
391:
216:, one of the original authors, and both the
127:DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Bunner
248:The Santa Clara Superior Court granted the
37:
388:
146:under California's implementation of the
243:
14:
505:
493:Press releases and court documents on
461:
427:DVD Copy Control Assn., Inc. v. Bunner
421:
419:
375:DVD Copy Control Assn., Inc. v. Bunner
369:
367:
403:DVD Copy Control Assn., Inc. v Bunner
499:EFF collection of related documents.
470:DVD Decryption Case Returns to Court
448:Court Overturns Ban on Posting DeCSS
285:Validity of the alleged trade secret
416:
364:
24:
440:
204:systems to play DVDs, and it uses
25:
539:
486:
523:2004 in United States case law
338:Electronic Frontier Foundation
263:
13:
1:
358:
188:
528:DVD Copy Control Association
331:
136:DVD Copy Control Association
7:
171:Supreme Court of California
50:California Courts of Appeal
10:
544:
480:, PC World (May 29, 2003).
353:Weil, Gotshal & Manges
518:California state case law
148:Uniform Trade Secrets Act
117:
112:
104:
99:
90:
85:
73:
65:
55:
45:
36:
31:
250:preliminary injunction
208:that were obtained by
134:that was filed by the
513:Trade secret case law
345:intellectual property
79:116 Cal. App. 4th 241
244:Trial court decision
210:reverse engineering
108:Premo, Elia, Mihara
475:2011-06-05 at the
453:2010-10-08 at the
432:2010-04-11 at the
408:2010-10-19 at the
380:2010-07-06 at the
258:irreparable injury
233:service providers
123:
122:
32:DVD CCA v. Bunner
18:DVD CCA v. Bunner
16:(Redirected from
535:
495:DVD CCA v Bunner
481:
465:
459:
458:EFF (Sep. 2005).
444:
438:
423:
414:
399:
386:
371:
100:Court membership
81:
41:
29:
28:
21:
543:
542:
538:
537:
536:
534:
533:
532:
503:
502:
489:
484:
477:Wayback Machine
466:
462:
455:Wayback Machine
445:
441:
434:Wayback Machine
424:
417:
410:Wayback Machine
400:
389:
382:Wayback Machine
372:
365:
361:
351:, a partner at
349:Jeffrey Kessler
334:
287:
279:content neutral
266:
246:
206:encryption keys
191:
167:First Amendment
138:("DVD CCA") in
77:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
541:
531:
530:
525:
520:
515:
501:
500:
488:
487:External links
485:
483:
482:
467:Paul Roberts,
460:
439:
415:
387:
362:
360:
357:
333:
330:
321:
320:
316:
315:
314:
311:
308:
301:
298:
286:
283:
265:
262:
245:
242:
190:
187:
175:property right
121:
120:
115:
114:
110:
109:
106:
105:Judges sitting
102:
101:
97:
96:
92:
88:
87:
83:
82:
75:
71:
70:
67:
63:
62:
57:
56:Full case name
53:
52:
47:
43:
42:
34:
33:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
540:
529:
526:
524:
521:
519:
516:
514:
511:
510:
508:
498:
496:
491:
490:
479:
478:
474:
471:
464:
457:
456:
452:
449:
443:
436:
435:
431:
428:
422:
420:
412:
411:
407:
404:
398:
396:
394:
392:
384:
383:
379:
376:
370:
368:
363:
356:
354:
350:
346:
341:
339:
329:
325:
317:
312:
309:
306:
305:
302:
299:
296:
295:
294:
291:
282:
280:
274:
272:
261:
259:
255:
251:
241:
239:
234:
229:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
186:
182:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
155:
153:
149:
145:
144:trade secrets
141:
137:
133:
129:
128:
116:
113:Case opinions
111:
107:
103:
98:
93:
91:Prior actions
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
61:
58:
54:
51:
48:
44:
40:
35:
30:
27:
19:
494:
468:
463:
446:
442:
425:
401:
373:
342:
335:
326:
322:
292:
288:
275:
267:
247:
230:
222:binary image
214:Jon Johansen
192:
183:
156:
126:
125:
124:
86:Case history
69:Feb 27, 2004
59:
26:
271:pure speech
264:Free speech
218:source code
507:Categories
359:References
238:injunction
189:Background
140:California
332:Reactions
319:mistake".
119:reversed.
473:Archived
451:Archived
430:Archived
406:Archived
378:Archived
226:Slashdot
220:and the
179:remanded
163:Internet
74:Citation
132:lawsuit
66:Decided
130:was a
202:Linux
194:DeCSS
46:Court
497:Case
336:The
254:CSS
198:DVD
509::
418:^
390:^
366:^
154:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
