concluding that disclosure of highly technical information, classified as trade secrets, does not relate to a matter of public concern because it adds nothing to any public debate regarding the efforts of the DVD industry to limit the unauthorized copying of DVDs
How later courts described this case
- concluding that disclosure of highly technical information, classified as trade secrets, does not relate to a matter of public concern because it adds nothing to any public debate regarding the efforts of the DVD industry to limit the unauthorized copying of DVDs
- noting, where information posted on Internet, “a plaintiff carries the burden of showing that the trade secret remains a trade secret despite the Internet posting”
- “Trade secrets[’] . . . . only value consists in their being kept private.”
- “a preliminary injunction poses a danger that permanent injunctive relief does not; that potentially protected speech will be enjoined prior to an adjudication on the merits of the speaker’s or publisher’s First Amendment claims”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WERDEGAR, J., Concurring.
I write separately because I agree partly with the majority and partly with Justice Moreno. I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not necessarily preclude injunctive relief in trade secret cases. I find in Justice Moreno’s concurring opinion, however, a more satisfying reconciliation of that conclusion with the constitutional rules governing prior restraints and content-based restrictions of speech.
*891 The court agrees that a reviewing court in First Amendment cases must examine the entire record independently to ensure that the factual predicates for injunctive relief truly exist. Justice Moreno would have us conduct that examination ourselves. Certainly we have the power to do so. In my view, however, considerations of judicial economy justify the majority’s decision to leave this factually intensive task to the Court of Appeal. (See Cal. Const., art. VI, § 12, subd. (c); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 29(b)(3).)