Warren McShane, President RTC:
paraphrasing is a violation of our copyright (KS-23)
Testimony under oath by Warren McShame, president of RTC, on September 8, 1995, in Courtroom C401, United States Courthouse, Denver, Colorado. Civil Action No. 95B2143, RTC v FactNet et. al (Judge Kane).
The full text is at Faegre & Benson.
Questions are asked by Mr. Cooly, RTC's lawyer; Mr. Kelly - who's interrupting - is FactNet's lawyer.
page 68 - 69:
Q. Is there any concern for the altering of the materials by shorthand expressions or by paraphrasing or things of that nature if they are in hands other than the church and is that a reason for keeping them confidential?
MR. KELLEY: No foundation, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: There cannot be any alteration at all of Mr. Hubbard's work. The way he had laid it, there is an exact sequence of steps. It's very detailed, and there can't be any alteration to it.
Q. Some of these newspaper articles alluded to buy Mr. Kelley in his opening statement this morning have seen some alterations and paraphrasing?
A. There have. In all the newspapers articles I have seen since 1982 and before have all contained to some degree some alteration. I don't believe that I can remember sitting here exact quotes from any of the materials.
Q. Did Mr. Kelley's statement itself constitute some serious paraphrasing of the material?
Q. Is that considered spiritually harmful by the Church of Scientology?
A. Yes, alteration or preexposure to materials we believe is harmful.
[Warren McShane is then asked to explain which of FactNet's files he had branded as infringing upon RTC's copyrights. Here he talks about a number of documents which fall within his definition of copyright violations. Emphasis added.]
page 88 - 90:
Then towards the back, Your Honor, you will see as we get into O.T. VI and O.T. VII, you will see different color highlighting. The blue highlighting, this is where the paraphrasing comes on.
THE COURT: Can you give me the exhibit number, please?
THE WITNESS: Under O.T. VI towards the back, Your Honor, under tab No. 1 you can see yellow highlighting and blue highlighting. What I tried to do here is to illustrate the paraphrasing that was done. This is an example where someone has attempted where it appears not having the actual material itself has attempted to reconstruct or some form remember what these issues are.
MR. COOLEY: Are we both the court and the witness on the right page?
THE COURT: I'm sorry, but
MR. COOLEY: Let's back up Mr. McShane and give the court a precise location.
THE WITNESS: Towards the back, Your Honor, you will see the last section is called O.T. I. Towards the very back of this binder, Your Honor. I'm sorry.
MR. COOLEY: That volume is Exhibit 79, Your Honor, itself.
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: We have O.T. I.
THE WITNESS: In this one, Your Honor, this is the blue highlighting. This is basically the paraphrase of what Mr. Hubbard has written. You can see the concept, the general concept is there. Like I said earlier, I am continuing my search to see if I can find earlier references than what I included to see if there was any more direct infringement or any other paraphrasing that has taken place here.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. COOLEY:
Q. With respect to the paraphrasing, have you attempted to pick out those items that are substantially similar in expression?
Q. Have they also included in the trade secret context a substantial similarity of ideas?
Q. So what you have attempted to highlight for the court deals with both copyright and trade secrets?
A. Yes, as best I could.