Check out the daily Political Notes.
An article published in Canada provides further information on Rowling's injunction against people who bought her book.
First, the author of the Harry Potter books was directly involved in this injunction, and therefore deserves no sympathy. The main publisher, in the UK, was also directly involved, so they cannot plead any injustice about a world-wide boycott.
Second, the mistake was the fault of the publisher directly, not the store. Even if it had been the store's fault, the injunction would have been just as wrong — but this makes the situation entirely clear.
Third, the injunction went even further than previously reported. It demanded that people who had published the book return their copies and turn over any notes they had made.
Fourth, the publisher is responding to criticism of the injunction by ducking the issue and changing the subject. It cited the laws that give them the power to do this, which fails to address the question of justice. This is one of several standard ways that the powerful, who have obtained privilege from the state, derail discussions of whether they deserve it.
Any law that gives companies the power to conscript you to keep their secrets is unjust. If we give this company a bloody nose, we will make the next company think twice before trying to exercise this power. This time, the book was fiction. Next time, it could contain information that a certain drug is killing people. You can be sure they would call that "trade secret" too.
Copyright (c) 2005, 2012
Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire page are permitted provided this notice is preserved.