🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <75461@ti-csl.csc.ti.com>, holland@m2 (Fred Hollander) writes:
|In article <6878@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes:
|>> In article <6842@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> I write:
|>>Well, here are the latest rumors that I have heard:
|>
|>Today I received a letter from an Apple employee commenting about this
|>posting.  He expressed displeasure with the content of my posting, and reminded
|>me that I am under a non-disclosure contract with Apple.  Just to prove to him
|>that I have read it, here are the major points:
|>
|>1.  CONSULTANT shall not...divulge to any unauthorized person any information
|>    designated as confidential by Apple.
|>2.  The restrictions shall not apply to information which (a) is known to
|>    CONSULTANT at the time of disclosure to CONSULTANT by APPLE, (b) has become
|>    publicly known through no wrongful act of CONSULTANT, (c) has been right-
|
|>Most all rumors that I have heard have come from one of several trade publica-
|>tions, including ComputerWorld, MacWEEK, Macworld, MacUser, various user's
|>group newsletters, and correspondence on the Usenet with other non-Apple
|>employees.  This type of information falls under categories (b) and (c)
|>generally.
|>
|
|I don't know all the details here, so this may not be totally
|appropriate.  In general you need to be careful discussing
|confidential or proprietary information even if it is discussed in
|public.  If it appears in an unofficial discussion or article (such as
|a rumors column), it is not yet "public information" as in 2.b.  If
|you discuss this information after appearing in a rumors column, then
|you are endorsing it, making it an official announcement.  Before it
|qualifies as public information, there must be an official public
|release.
|
|I've know cases where confidential information appeared in sources
|such as Aviation Week.  But, the information remained confidential!
|It's an uncomfortable feeling when everyone else can discuss something
|that you know about, but you need to be quiet because it's
|"confidential".
|
|Fred Hollander
|Computer Science Center
|Texas Instruments, Inc.
|hollander@ti.com
|
|The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.

There is an old tenent in business: "Don't sign a contract with
someone you can't trust."  This is because NO contract is completely
clear in all cases, so you must TRUST that the other party will do
what is fair in unclear or ambiguous situations.  Unfortunately, most
of us do not deal with people (which can be trusted or not), but must
deal with companies (which change personnel and policies so much that
they cannot be trusted).  So when you sign a non-disclosure agreement
try to make personal contact with a human and agree with them to be
TRUSTWORTHY.  If some time in the future, someone else jumps in to say
that you have violated the agreement and you feel that you have not
violated the original agreement, tell them you are sorry that they
feel that way.  Inform them that you did not enter into an agreement
with them, but with someone else and that they should discuss it with
the original signer.  I usually leave open the door to further
discussions, but it usually isn't worth the time to talk with people
like that (particularly public relations people), unless they wish to
PAY for your time or are going to sue.

These are my opionions based upon my experiences as a consultant and
engineer: no disclaimer is necessary.  I'm a person, not a company,
you can trust me or not.

P.S. "Confidential" is a governement security level and represents a
totally new ballgame (They WILL get you.). "Company Private" is the
correct term. Any information that should be controlled, needs to
be marked as such (usually with a stamp); otherwise it is open to
judgement as to the sensitivity of the information.

John M.A. Roy (714) 856-5039
ICS Dept., Univ. Calif., Irvine CA 92714
Internet: roy@ics.uci.edu