Security-conference gag order (RE: In The News)

[Max.Hyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

   Gentlefolk:

   The most interesting aspect of the report
(http://news.com.com/2100-1028-996836.html) is that copyright
isn't mentioned.  The plaintiff claims the presentation may be
blocked because it is ``commercial speech'', which is given a
lower level of First Amendment protection.  The plaintiff says
the students are a ``small competitor''.

``[T]he restraining order was grounded largely in federal and
Georgia state antihacking laws and a state trade secrets act.''

   I find the latter interesting, because I was taught that
reverse-engineering is always a legal way to extract a trade
secret.  (E.g., if you can duplicate Coca-Cola by chemical
analysis, Coke can't do a thing about it.)  Can anyone with
more up-to-date knowledge fill me in?

-- 

                         Best wishes,

                                  Max Hyre