Difference between revisions of "No licence - Confi Provision"

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{a|confi|}}A classic part of overreach, confusing the contractual obligation of ''confidentiality'' with the intellectual property concepts of ''ownership''. Conf...")
 
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''.
+
{{confianat|no licence}}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''.
  
 
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.
 
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.

Revision as of 06:25, 31 July 2020

Confi Anatomy


A sensible no licence clause:

“ ”.
view template

Resources: Confidentiality agreement | Confi — Led Zeppelin style | GDPR | Copyright vs. confidence | |
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 |

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.

so firstly, in giving information to a counterparty under a confi, you are licensing them to use the information for the 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.