Subject:
|
Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Sep 2000 13:43:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
365 times
|
| |
|
|
I'm not sure where the best place to hang this in the tree is, but here
it is.
Many people have argued that now that the information about the 2001
sets is openly available, Lugnet should not bow down to TLC's request to
remove the information.
My feeling on this is that it is absolutely the right thing for Todd to
comply with the request. He went to some effort to assure that the
request was not just one TLC employee's personal reaction to the event,
but a considered request from TLC as an entity (even if TLC's board
itself did not get involved in the consideration, at least one lawyer
did, and at least one high level manager [we know that Brad is a high
level manager]). When a formal and considered request is made, the
person receiving the request must balance the "cost" of complying
against the "cost" of not complying. If the request is reasonable in the
eyes of the law, and the entity making the request can document
significant damage, the person receiving the request can be subject to
substantial fines, and possibly court ordered limitation of future
activity. On the other hand, Todd has not quashed all discussion of this
information. He has not tried to stuff the cat back into the bag. One
must also recognize that no matter how stupid TLC's request looks, they
MUST make that request, or risk in the future losing a court case
against Ritvik or some other competitor when that competitor manages to
acquire significant information about future sets and beats TLC to
market with a complete range of competitive sets, and on top of that,
patents something TLC had invented. In ANY type of property rights case,
the court will always look at what steps you took to protect your
property.
If TLC truly considers the pricing information valuable (and I suspect
they do), I would expect Target to either make some significant changes
in their operations, pay TLC a chunk of money, or wind up with a court
case (and if the leak is significant enough, a court case may happen
even if Target is willing to try and resolve things with TLC, though
that will depend on case law - if there's enough case law that says that
getting a corportation to sign an agreement about a leak of confidential
information is sufficient enforcement of prior contracts to not weaken
such contracts, then a court case may not be needed [this actually
probably is the case]).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| From what I've seen of this information leak, it's a case of shutting the gate *after* the horse has bolted. If six million people suddenly knew WW3 was coming, but shouldn't have, because of some government department's stuff-up in transferring the (...) (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
|
|
|
|
