Confidentiality agreement: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{rightbox|{{Rocknrollconfi}}}}Also known, to those for whom the glass is half-empty, as a [[non-disclosure agreement]]. An agreement whereby you promise not to tell. If Robert Plant were writing one, he would write it like the box on the right.
{{rightbox|30|{{Rocknrollconfi}}}}Also known, to those for whom the glass is half-empty, as a [[non-disclosure agreement]]. An agreement whereby you promise not to tell. If Robert Plant were writing one, he would write it like the box on the right.


Anyhoo. Here are the main of a normal financial markets confidentiality.
Anyhoo. Here are the main of a normal financial markets confidentiality.
Line 26: Line 26:
===='''Return of information'''====
===='''Return of information'''====
The disclosing party will want rights to get the information back at the end of the project. In this modern era of distributed network computing, the old entreaties to “return all copies of information” are faintly absurd: as if they’ve been kept in a manila folder in a filing cabinet somewhere, only inspected by chaperoned employees wearing white cotton gloves. Of course everything will have been transmitted electronically, will exist on servers all around the world, and the very action of attempting to return it will oblige it to be copied onto other servers. Some of these copies will be stored for years under document retention policies. So the real ask ought to be “to put beyond practical use” and have an exception for regulatory retention. There’s also a conceptual issue with information the receiving party has derived from the confidential information — this may include information which is confidential to the receiver, and should not have to be offered up to the discloser.
The disclosing party will want rights to get the information back at the end of the project. In this modern era of distributed network computing, the old entreaties to “return all copies of information” are faintly absurd: as if they’ve been kept in a manila folder in a filing cabinet somewhere, only inspected by chaperoned employees wearing white cotton gloves. Of course everything will have been transmitted electronically, will exist on servers all around the world, and the very action of attempting to return it will oblige it to be copied onto other servers. Some of these copies will be stored for years under document retention policies. So the real ask ought to be “to put beyond practical use” and have an exception for regulatory retention. There’s also a conceptual issue with information the receiving party has derived from the confidential information — this may include information which is confidential to the receiver, and should not have to be offered up to the discloser.
====Term===
Some folks will insist on a hard stop, say two years, after which supplied information ceases to be confidential. [[Inhouse lawyer|Inhouse lawyers]] may profess themselves to be immutably bound to have such a term by internal [[policy]]]]. While the commercial value of much information does go stale over time (blueprints fo a BetaMax, anyone?), this isn’t universally true — a client list is valuable however long you hold it — and the usual justification for the hard stop (“we don't have the systems to indefinitely hold infoirmation subject to confidence and don't want indeterminate liability for breach”) is a canard. Whatever information security systems you do have don’t suddenly stop working after three years. And as for indeterminate liability — well, [[no harm no foul]]: if the information really is stale then no loss follows from a breach, right? No loss, no damages.


===What a confi shouldn't have===
The following often make their way into a confi agreement, though none really have any business being there.
*An [[Exclusivity clause]]
*A [[Mon-solicitation clause]]
*An [[indemnity]]