Subject:
|
Re: Non-Disclosure question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 May 2001 23:07:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
527 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes:
> "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
> news:GCs23G.9uJ@lugnet.com...
> > 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.
>
> 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 means,
> legally, we can disclose what we were told. That doesn't mean we will - some
> things we might withhold out of courtesy to LEGO - and depending on other
> factors there might be things that are appropriate or inappropriate to • disclose.
>
> I don't intend on disclosing information after the NDA is up that LEGO prefers • I
> not disclose. If others who were under NDA want to, that's their business.
>
> Robin Smith would be able to best answer the question, her being a (one of • two,
> I believe) Corporate Counsel for the Americas, she probably knows the NDA • inside
> out and backwards and perhaps even drafted it herself.
It sounds like you asked, but the expiration on an NDA may not be the point at
which you can reveal the information, but the point at which you need to sign a
new NDA before sharing any further secrets. This is just my non-lawyerly
opinion based on what I've heard about NDAs here at work.
In general though, the best thing to do with information learned under the
conditions of an NDA is to assume that if the NDA doesn't address when you can
talk about the information learned, that you should assume you don't have
permission to talk about it. Of course often, one isn't even supposed to let on
that one is under an NDA. On the other hand, I suspect in this case that TLC
probably does want some amount of discussion between those under NDAs and the
rest of us at the appropropriate time because one reason the particular folks
being talked to are being talked to is to get information from fans in general.
I expect that as this process continues, TLC will refine the terms of the NDA
and be more clear what kinds of information may be shared after the fact (and
even before hand - for example, Larry might be under NDA, but be being asked to
get opinions from the rest of us on certain things, in which case he needs to
be able to talk at least somewhat about what he's trying to get information
about, but it can be reduced to such generalizations as to not tip TLC's hand).
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
