 | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) Well, I will chime in here by saying that Meijer has a policy considering things of this nature to be company sensitive. I know that the Systems department have special rules in regards to situations like this. Scott S. -- (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) I don't think that's a correct assumption. According to BradJ and LSI Legal, this was information (especially the pricing, which could change between now and the release) which was not intended for the public and should never have been made (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Why would you think TLC haven't already complain to Target also? (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I just received an email reply from Brad to my earlier message to him today. He reiterated that the original request was a formal legal request and noted that he could not give permission for me to post the contents of the message. He said (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
exactly... I think Todd did the right thing in responding to LEGO's wishes (formally or informally legal). However, LEGO should have directed this 'problem' at Target - NOT at LUGNET... Just my 2 cents.. Gene (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Actually, probably a few days. Just spoke with the LSI attorney who Brad consulted with before sending the request, and I got the distinct sense that this is a issue which LEGO wishes to address quickly and devote whatever time and resources (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) <clip> (...) I can say with confidence (because I am in a business where we frequently get prerelease product info and training material that is covered by a non- disclosure agreement) that LEGO has this in place between themselves and Target. (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) <sheepish> Um... OK... I didn't mean that the way it sounded. :-| </sheepish> -Duane (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Whoa whoa whoa! Watch what you say, please. For the record, I have *NEVER* censored a message here and never will. Any message I have ever removed has been under one of four cases: 1. Someone is unable to cancel their own message for whatever (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Probably not more than another 8 or 9 hours. I sent a polite request to Brad today asking for his permission to post a verbatim copy of his email, and cc'd the LSI attorney who he originally cc'd on his request, and also left a phone message (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Todd, as the big kahuna, has the right to censor messages at his discretion since LUGNET IS afterall, his site. He's done it before, he's done it in this case and I'm sure he'll have to do it again. It's in the best interest of the LUGNET/TLC (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I'm also voting for this. If you (Todd) are going to cancel a post by someone at the behest of Lego (who neither sponsor nor endorse LUGNET), release the legal document asking you to remove it. I suspect that it was in the form of a 'please (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) Not in Canada they cannot...even my employer cannot. (DND) (...) If the info was not labeled, then too late for it to be labeled afterwards. James Powell (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) 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? (...) Put another way -- (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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, (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
Eugwe Coral <eugwecoral37@cs.com> schrieb: FyyoI7.MJ1@lugnet.com... (...) What you wrote makes a lot of sence for me, but if this was the case, why did TLC ask Todd to cancel the message and not Target. Note that only Target would be affected if (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Not to put you on the spot, but how long do you envision waiting for Brad J. (or somone at Lego) to post explaining their position before you post his email? I'm very interested in insight into (wow, three "in" words in a row) TLC's reasoning (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Uh, kinda... NICK #:^< (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) I don't think that matters. Once information is public, any trade secret protection ends. And if Lego wanted trade secret protection in the first place, they should have made sure that Target made its employees know that they have a duty to (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
