No licence granted: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
Created page with "{{a|confi|}}A classic part of overreach, confusing the contractual obligation of ''confidentiality'' with the intellectual property concepts of ''ownership''. Conf..."
 
No edit summary
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|confi|}}A classic part of overreach, confusing the contractual obligation of ''[[confidentiality]]'' with the [[intellectual property]] concepts of ''[[ownership]]''. Confidentiality agreements are not about ownership. They’re about keeping ''shtum''.
{{a|confi|}}You may, [[from time to time]], see something like this.


so firstly, in giving information to a counterparty under a [[confi]], you ''are'' licensing them to use the information for the {{confiprov|purpose}} — to the extent that you’re even ''entitled '' to do that, of course, and that is ''your'' problem, not the receiving party’s — and there’s not really anything to be gained by denying that fact. Secondly, in giving information under a [[confi]], as thefg foregoing implies, you are not necessarily the owner of the confidential information yourself — ''you'' may be a licensee of someone else’s proprietary information, and indeed the information may not be owned, or even capable of being owned, by anyone. Raw data is not susceptible of copyright.
:“''All of Discloser’s Confidential Information shall remain the absolute property of the Discloser. Neither this NDA nor any disclosure of information hereunder grants the Recipient any right or license under any trademark, copyright or patent now or hereafter owned or controlled by the Discloser.''”
 
This is a classic [[legal eagle]] overreach, confusing the ''[[Contract|contractual]]'' obligation of ''[[confidentiality]]'' with the ''[[intellectual property]]'' concept of ''[[ownership]]''.
 
''[[Confidentiality agreement]]s are not about ownership''. They’re about keeping ''shtum''.
 
So firstly, in giving spicy information to a counterparty under a [[confi]], you ''are'' licensing it to use the information for the {{confiprov|purpose}} — to the extent that you’re even ''entitled '' to grant a licence, of course, and that is ''your'' problem, not the receiving party’s — and there’s not really anything to be gained by denying that fact.  
 
Secondly, in giving information under a [[confi]], as the foregoing implies, ''you are not necessarily the owner of the confidential information yourself''. ''You'' may be a [[licensee]] of someone else’s [[proprietary information]], and indeed the confidential information may not be owned at all, or even ''capable'' of being owned, by ''anyone''. [[copyright|You cannot copyright raw data]].<ref>This is an IP lawyer’s equivalent of “you can’t dust for vomit”, by the way.</ref>
 
If you fancy a [[swept-back wing knee-slide]], when confronted with such a provision, consider the following:
 
:“''All of Discloser’s Confidential Information shall remain the absolute property of the Discloser. Neither this NDA nor any disclosure of information hereunder grants the Recipient any right or license under any trademark, copyright or patent now or hereafter owned or controlled by the Discloser{{insert| beyond those reasonably necessary to exercise its rights and perform its obligations under this Agreement and the Project}}.''”
 
Like, [[in your face|in your ''face'']], dude.
{{sa}}
*[[Copyright]]
*[[Intellectual property]]
{{ref}}

Latest revision as of 09:30, 9 September 2021

NDA Anatomy™
JC’s guide to non-standard confidentiality agreements.
For the OneNDA, see the OneNDA Anatomy
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

You may, from time to time, see something like this.

“All of Discloser’s Confidential Information shall remain the absolute property of the Discloser. Neither this NDA nor any disclosure of information hereunder grants the Recipient any right or license under any trademark, copyright or patent now or hereafter owned or controlled by the Discloser.”

This is a classic legal eagle overreach, confusing the contractual obligation of confidentiality with the intellectual property concept of ownership.

Confidentiality agreements are not about ownership. They’re about keeping shtum.

So firstly, in giving spicy information to a counterparty under a confi, you are licensing it to use the information for the purpose — to the extent that you’re even entitled to grant a licence, of course, and that is your problem, not the receiving party’s — and there’s not really anything to be gained by denying that fact.

Secondly, in giving information under a confi, as the foregoing implies, you are not necessarily the owner of the confidential information yourself. You may be a licensee of someone else’s proprietary information, and indeed the confidential information may not be owned at all, or even capable of being owned, by anyone. You cannot copyright raw data.[1]

If you fancy a swept-back wing knee-slide, when confronted with such a provision, consider the following:

“All of Discloser’s Confidential Information shall remain the absolute property of the Discloser. Neither this NDA nor any disclosure of information hereunder grants the Recipient any right or license under any trademark, copyright or patent now or hereafter owned or controlled by the Discloser beyond those reasonably necessary to exercise its rights and perform its obligations under this Agreement and the Project.”

Like, in your face, dude.

See also

References

  1. ↑ This is an IP lawyer’s equivalent of “you can’t dust for vomit”, by the way.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=No_licence_granted&oldid=58809"