> Second, the court ruled that the preliminary injunction which the lower > court had issued was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, but > went out of its way not to answer whether damages and/or a permanent > injunction after trial would suffer the same fate.
Actually, the fact that the issue in question is a "prior" restraint -- a preliminary injunction issued before a full judicial determination about the merits of the case -- is what dominated their whole analysis. If they had analyzed a permanent injunction, they would have been straying way off into dicta. I think they did it right. They also spent a good bit of time showing how trade secrets don't get the same level of protection as First Amendment speech OR copyright (e.g. trade secrets are not in the constitution). This let them distinguish this case from the far-too-many cases in which preliminary injunctions are issued to censor speech because of an allegation of COPYRIGHT infringement. John --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]