No licence granted: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{a|confi|}}A classic part of overreach, confusing the contractual obligation of ''confidentiality'' with the intellectual property concepts of ''ownership''. Conf...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{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 11:25, 31 July 2020
|
NDA Anatomy™
|
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.