Public domain

Public domain
/ˈpʌblɪk dəʊˈmeɪn/ (n.)

NDA Anatomy™ JC’s guide to non-standard confidentiality agreements. For the OneNDA, see the OneNDA Anatomy →Go uptown The OneNDA clause What is Confidential Information? Confidential Information means information that is disclosed: by a party to this Agreement (the Discloser) or on the Discloser’s behalf by its authorised representatives or its Affiliates, to the other party to this Agreement (the Receiver), its Affiliates or Permitted Receivers, and in connection with the Purpose. Affiliates means any: entity that directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, is under common control with or is otherwise in the same group of entities as a party to this Agreement, or fund or limited partnership that is managed or advised, or whose general partner or manager is managed or advised, by the Receiver or its Affiliate or which the Receiver or its Affiliate controls. Permitted Receivers means the Receiver’s Affiliates and the Receiver’s or its Affiliates’ officers, employees, members, representatives, professional advisors, agents and subcontractors. Confidential Information does not include information that is: in the public domain not by breach of this Agreement, known by the Receiver or its Permitted Receivers at the time of disclosure, lawfully obtained by the Receiver or its Permitted Receivers from a third party other than through a breach of confidence, independently developed by the Receiver, or expressly indicated by the Discloser as not confidential. view template Resources: Confidentiality agreement | Confi — Led Zeppelin style | GDPR | Copyright vs. confidence | OneNDA | Common terms | Certification | Confidential information | Confidentiality obligation | Derived information | Disclosed information | Discloser | Exclusivity | Indemnity | No licence | Non-solicitation | Permitted disclosees | Permitted disclosures | Procure compliance | Purpose | Receiver | Remedies | Reps and warranties | Return of information | Term of confidentiality | Index: Click ᐅ to expand: Confidentiality OneNDA 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.

WIthout wishing to rip off the Cambridge Dictionary — but hang it, it is in the public domain, at least according to its own definition:

“if information is in the public domain, it is available for everyone to see or know about”

That is the colloquial use: “public domain” is really just a pompous way of saying “public”.

But “public domain” also has a technical, narrower definition, that hails from the law of copyright: information that is “in the public domain” consists of all creative work that could be protected by intellectual property rights, but isn’t, whether because those rights have expired, been forfeited, waived, or for some other reason just don’t apply.

The OneNDA itself is “in the public domain” in this narrow way. But much of the information one may share under it is not. Yet, in its “carve out” from the scope of confidentiality, version one uses the expression “public domain” rather than simply “public”.

This is a cue for those who take pleasure from such things, to raise a technical objection.

“Aha! This is too narrow! This is wrong-headed! This means only information that is not protected by patent or copyright is excluded from the confidentiality obligation, when what one really means is information that is public!”

We remark at once that if one applies that technical, fussy reading, this is correct. Even if you don’t, the prose stylist in you might feel “in public” to be a neater expression, if that is what you mean.

But those who come to a text must approach it in good faith, mindful of context, and with a practical attitude. It is face-slappingly obvious what is meant here. Copyright is a tool for exploiting the commercial value of information by making it, in a controlled way, public. An NDA is a device designed to prevent that.

If information is public, but not yet in the public domain, it is, Q.E.D., not confidential, and calling it “confidential” does not change that.

But, as we know, the eyrie overflows with nervous chickens. They fear they have undercooked their goose.

But have they? Let us work this logic out, taking “public domain” to have its technical meaning. Imagine the argument that might unfold should one fellow have passed to another, under protection of OneNDA, information that is in fact widely known, but is not yet out of copyright. For example, a prospectus, composed not six months ago and at great cost by learned counsel; undoubtedly a work of a creative effort, if not style or imagination. This tract attracts automatic copyright protection.<Ref>Pedants: can we agree, for the sake of argument, that even if enforcement of copyright is not insisted upon, its waiver was not so definitive as to put it “in the public domain”? It has been published, for all the world to see — with that express intent, in fact — and is in no sense secret. Thus, according to the narrow reading of “public domain” a fastidious fellow would have us make, by contract, disclosure of this prospectus is still impressed with the obligation of confidence. I may not share it, upon pain of breaching the contract.

Two observations: firstly, the fact that the rest of the world knows something is really beside the point. The rest of the world is not party to the contract. If you have received information on terms of confidence, then treat it that way. What does it matter that it happens to be public? Are you wracked with an urge to shout from the rooftops, just because the information is not, actually secret? This seems a curious urge.

Secondly, if you should happen to disclose the information — perhaps someone else in your organisation, unaware of the confidentiality obligation, shares a separate copy obtained elsewhere — then what is the discloser’s loss? What damages has she suffered?

Thirdly, making the outlandish supposition that a discloser brings an action before a court, how is a court likely to interpret the public domain? To give any sense to the contract — which is about secrecy, not commercial exploitation, remember — it will read that in a loose sense as meaning public. Yes, it is a redundant and ungainly way of expressing the idea, but what the canon of English commercial contracts are hardly a model of tight, elegant prose.

For if the complaint is unnecessary fussiness, then why stop with “domain”? Any mention of public information, when describing something confidential, is fussy.

See also

• Copyright and patent