Purpose - OneNDA Provision: Difference between revisions

Purpose - OneNDA Provision (view source)

Revision as of 13:02, 21 September 2021

136 bytes added , 21 September 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,882

edits

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 If you want a sensible answer, do not ask the litigation department. The litigation department owes its existence to people’s collective inability to ask themselves sensible questions.
-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''.
+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'', that latter thing itself being a consequence of ''pissing off a valuable customer''.
+To “ask litigation for a view” is to acknowledge that ''our customer might violently object to what we are proposing to do''. Customers whom you have pissed off so badly that they are are actively pursuing you in court tend not to give you as much business as those whom you have not.
 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.