Purpose - OneNDA Provision: Difference between revisions

To answer this question they will burrow deeply into drafting that was, we now know, dashed off rangily by someone in [[Sales]]. It won’t clearly address the present situation. Unsatisfied, and having set common sense aside for the moment, the legal eagle 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 the tentative conclusion that ''perhaps the [[litigation]] team might have a view'', or even [[outside counsel]]?

====A gratuitous slight on litigation lawyers====

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''.