Subject:
|
Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 9 Aug 2000 16:49:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
223 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > [...]
> > Now, the information above is accurate as far as Jorge has presented it.
> > It's possible he doesn't actually have the right to look in the computer.
> > It's possible that Target blew it and shouldn't have had the information in
> > *their* computer. But if all of the above are true, and LEGO doesn't want
> > it to be, then LEGO needs to change the way they do business, not ask all of
> > us to "not discuss it".
>
> I don't claim to know all or even many of the details, but I'll bet that no
> one person "blew it" and that it's the result of poor communication on a
> number of levels,
Sorry, but here we're going to have to disagree. If Lego and Target have an
agreement (which is starting to become apparent), then someone is responsible
for the fact that the info got out. If Jorge signed something when he was
hired saying that he wouldn't reveal this kind of information, then he is
responsible. If his supervisor failed to let him know that this is something
he shouldn't do, then it is the supervisor's responsibility, and so on through
the branch of Target itself. If there was poor communication between the
Target legal department and other departments concerning the fact that
information of this type shouldn't be discussed before a certain point, then
the fault lies with Target legal. If someone at Lego failed to communicate to
Target that the information was sensitive, then it's someone at Lego's fault.
And so on.
I'm not going to claim that any one person is solely at fault, but then, that
was never the bulk of the basis for my feelings on this subject. The main
point is, once the information is out there, asking us not to talk about it is
a ridiculous request for Lego to make.
> If I had to guess, given everything I've heard so far, I would guess that
> Target (as a corporate entity) is in violation of their contract with LEGO
> by having allowed Jorge to have access to and disclose information which they
> were supposed to have held confidential. Note: This is partially an
> educated guess but also speculation -- so take it with a grain of salt.
Great! Then Lego should go to Target and work out a) what needs to be done so
this doesn't happen again and b) some way to settle damages for it having
happened in the first place.
> The basic idea here is this: Let's not assume a priori that LEGO is the one
> at fault for the leak -- even remotely. Who knows, it *might* be true, but
> I doubt it, so I don't think we should assume it.
I never even briefly assumed that Lego was responsible for a leak of
information. Who is at fault was never a consideration. Assuming what Jorge
said was true- which I did at first- there was no one at fault; now that I
think there might well have been a leak, well, I think that Lego has the right
to make sure it doesn't happen again, but asking us not to talk about the
information is foolish.
> p.s. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
Neither am I.
eric
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) I don't claim to know all or even many of the details, but I'll bet that no one person "blew it" and that it's the result of poor communication on a number of levels, most likely starting at the level between Target's lawyers and Target's (...) (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
|
|
|
|
