83,492
edits
Template:Confi term: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
So must your NDA have a [[Term of confidentiality|term]]? Some insist on a hard stop, say two years, after which {{confiprov|confidential information}} ''ceases'' to be confidential. | So must your [[NDA]] have a [[Term of confidentiality|term]]? Some insist on a hard stop, say two years, after which {{confiprov|confidential information}} ''ceases'' to be confidential. | ||
===Why have a term at all? Good question.=== | |||
Many [[Inhouse lawyer|inhouse lawyers]] profess themselves immutably bound to such a term, by internal [[policy]]. They would sooner be broken upon a wheel than let this one go. This [[policy]], they will intuit, dates from the days of the [[First Men]], possibly was the result of a misunderstanding, but in any case subsequently has hardened, encrusted, calcified, petrified, and finally fossilised itself into a layer so deep in the firm’s organisational [[substrate]] that there is no known means of questioning it. In the very act of questioning it invites some kind of opprobrium. If anyone ever did really understand what the issue was, they have long since moved on, or ''been'' moved on, and no-one remains who can recall, much less articulate the original reason for this policy, or why it is still needed now. | Many [[Inhouse lawyer|inhouse lawyers]] profess themselves immutably bound to such a term, by internal [[policy]]. They would sooner be broken upon a wheel than let this one go. This [[policy]], they will intuit, dates from the days of the [[First Men]], possibly was the result of a misunderstanding, but in any case subsequently has hardened, encrusted, calcified, petrified, and finally fossilised itself into a layer so deep in the firm’s organisational [[substrate]] that there is no known means of questioning it. In the very act of questioning it invites some kind of opprobrium. If anyone ever did really understand what the issue was, they have long since moved on, or ''been'' moved on, and no-one remains who can recall, much less articulate the original reason for this policy, or why it is still needed now. | ||