81,821
edits
No licence granted: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
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''. | {{confianat|no licence}}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.''” | |||
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. | ||
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. | |||