Purpose - OneNDA Provision: Difference between revisions

Purpose - OneNDA Provision (view source)

Revision as of 08:56, 21 September 2021

727 bytes added , 21 September 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,853

edits

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 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]]?
+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 the tentative conclusion that perhaps the [[litigation]] team might have a view, or even [[outside counsel]]?
 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''.
 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.
+No, friends: if you believe your customer might object to your proposed disclosure you have two options. This first — which you should not dismiss out of hand, even if someone in Sales now wants to — is to just ''not'' make the disclosure. In the long run, this is the better thing to do. The second — more likely where the proposed disclosure is to a regulator, or in the course of some legal process, where you are more or less compelled to disclose it — is to tell your client you have received a request, or command, to surrender the information, and that you propose to do so, on condition that the regulator treats it as confidential, and limiting and anonymising the information as best you can
 {{Sa}}
 [[The Ultimate Purpose]], being the reason any commercial undertaking exists.
 {{ref}}