Subject:
|
Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Aug 2000 16:04:37 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@mattdm.*spamcake*org
|
Viewed:
|
290 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote:
> Further, while it's true that the info in this instance is no longer secret,
> there have been cases in the past of companies trying to put the genie back in
> the bottle (and in some cases, succeeding) by finding every copy and returning
> it to secret.
And here is where the problem with not 'getting' the internet comes in.
Plus, the information is now in quite a few people's brains (not mine --
memory not good enough *grin*). Do they intend to wipe those clean?
> manufacturer does, and expect you, Target, to take reasonable and customary
> precautions to prevent disclosure". If they said that, Target is now holding
> the bag, not TLC, because TLC (using my words) "made it clear" that it's
> secret. And I can't imagine they *didn't* say those words or similar. They're
> in the boilerplate of every contract you sign in the business world, just
Put another way -- Target is holding the bag, not LUGnet, yeah?
> about. Read your employment agreement, for example.
Didn't have to sign anything like that. I work in academia, remember? :)
> I'm not totally disagreeing with you, Matt, just pointing out that it's not
> quite as cut and dried as you're saying. And the more I think about it, the
> more I think Todd has no practical choice but to quash anything questionable,
> once he goes down the editorial control road (which he has, whether he admits
> it or not, by enforcing the T&C's, which we all want him to do, don't we!!!!).
I'm not totally disagreeing with you either. I agree that Todd made the best
decision given the circumstances. I certainly don't think that *Lego* made
the best decision, though.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) in (...) returning (...) We're not there, thank goodness, but again, drawing from memory, there have been cases where *every* person who could be reasonably identified as having seen it (a small number, less than 1000) was informed that the (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) some. (...) disclosed (...) Well, not exactly. When a company is seeking damages in a suit due to losses, the level of protection that the information is given is a material factor, but not the entiriety. That is, were TLC to sue Target, (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
33 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
