Subject:
|
Re: Non-Disclosure question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 May 2001 20:54:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
306 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Dave Schuler writes:
> I understand that certain fortunate individuals among us are privy to
> information that they've agreed not to divulge, and that's cool. However,
> once the info becomes public knowledge, will you folks be able to discuss
> what you had been told in the first place? That is, if the information is
> (or isn't, for that matter) consistent with what you'd initially heard, are
> you allowed to point this out?
I am not a lawyer.
And I would love to hear the definitive info but I think the answer is no.
That is, disclosing what you knew or when you knew it or whether it was
correctly predictive is itself a violation of a typical NDA. But I could be
wrong and I would defer to a statement by LD on how they construe their NDA.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Non-Disclosure question
|
| "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GCs23G.9uJ@lugnet.com... (...) On the agreement I signed (and I talked this over with someone at LD, recently even), the agreement terminates one year from the date signed. This (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Non-Disclosure question
|
| I understand that certain fortunate individuals among us are privy to information that they've agreed not to divulge, and that's cool. However, once the info becomes public knowledge, will you folks be able to discuss what you had been told in the (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
4 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
|
|
|
|
