Purpose - OneNDA Provision: Difference between revisions

Purpose - OneNDA Provision (view source)

Revision as of 08:50, 21 September 2021

2,398 bytes added , 21 September 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,889

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{confianat|Purpose}}''In the narrow sense of “the purpose we are sharing [[confidential information]]”  — we imagine in furtherance of The Ultimate Purpose — and not [[The Ultimate Purpose]] itself, being the [[the meaning of life, the universe and everything]] for a commercial undertaking.''<br>
 ===OneNDA discussion ===
-Take care to describe the purpose to at least make it clear. This does not require specific legal skill, and a salesperson with a decent command of English should be able to manage it (indeed, many [[legal eagle]]s have so curious a grip on English — like some kind of half-Nelson or choke-hold —that they can’t), but: be clear enough and broad enough in scope to capture all information flowing between the parties that reasonably relates to the secret undertaking, so that you know it will be kept quiet, but not ''so'' broad and indeterminate that it could take in any kind of random information that happens to pass between the parties, whether related to the purpose or not, and whether commercially sensitive or not.
+{{confi purpose}}
+Take care to describe the purpose at least make it to clear. This does not require specific legal skill; a salesperson with a decent command of English should be able to manage it (indeed, many [[legal eagle]]s have so curious a grip on English — like some kind of half-Nelson or choke-hold —that they ''can’t''); just enough facility to be broad enough to capture all information flowing between the parties that reasonably relates to the secret undertaking, so that you know it will be kept quiet, but not ''so''  indeterminate that it could take in any kind of random information that happens to pass between the parties, whether related to the purpose or not, and whether commercially sensitive or not.
+Once inked, legal eagles will obsess about the precise limits of the purpose. The question will arise, “I have this document; I should like to send it to this person, who has a good reason for wanting it. Is it within the scope of the purpose?”
+To answer this question they will burrow deeply into drafting that was, we now know, dashed off rangily by someone in Sales. Unsatisfied, they will look further afield for help, soon getting themselves tangled up in the definition of “[[Confidential information - OneNDA Provision|confidential information]]” — also a thing of some craftspersonship — the manifest exceptions, [[carve-out]]s and exclusions to it, and before long the winding path will lead them to a conclusion: perhaps the [[litigation]] team might have a view, or even [[outside counsel]]?
-==General discussion==
+The [[JC]] has a view that {{maxim|if you have to ask the litigation department if something’s okay, it is probably not okay.}}<ref>Excepted from this are exceptions to the [[sovereign immunity]] policy and dispensations with the need to appoint [[process agent]]s. Litigation will say no anyway. Sub-rule: if something ''is'' okay, and you ask the [[litigation department]] if it is okay, they will say it is not okay. Meta-rule: ask a silly question, you will get a silly answer.</ref> We get to that point on this line of reasoning: we are interpreting our rights and obligations under a legal contract with a (presumably) valuable customer. If we have in mind that a consequence of adopting our desired interpretation is (i) the customer might sue us, but (ii) after a full trial, we would win, then we are wildly missing the point: the primary mischief here is not ''losing in court'', but ''being sued by a valuable customer''. Customers who are actively pursuing you in court tend not to give you as much business as those who are not. To “ask litigation for a view” is to acknowledge that ''our customer might violently object to what we are proposing to do''.
-{{confi purpose}}
+Here we call to attention our old friend the [[commercial imperative]]. Commerce is a long game, friends. There are ''very'' few cases where the short term benefit of winning on this point, now, outweighs the longer reward of ongoing revenue, gladly imparted, by a happy customer. They usually come about where customer is in the process of spiralling into the side of a hill. Usually, this does not happen in connection with an NDA.
 {{Sa}}
 [[The Ultimate Purpose]], being the reason any commercial undertaking exists.
+{{ref}}