Public domain: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 14: Line 14:
“''Aha! This is too narrow! This is wrong-headed!'' This means only information that is not protected by [[patent]] or [[copyright]] is excluded from the [[confidentiality obligation]], when what one really means is information that is public!”
“''Aha! This is too narrow! This is wrong-headed!'' This means only information that is not protected by [[patent]] or [[copyright]] is excluded from the [[confidentiality obligation]], when what one really means is information that is public!”


We remark at once that on a technical, fussy reading, this is correct. You might expect version two to correct this: however you look at it, “public” is a neater expression, if that is what you mean.
We remark at once that if one applies that technical, fussy reading, this is correct. Even if you don’t, the [[prose stylist]] in you might feel “in public” to be a neater expression, if that is what you mean.
 
But those who come to a text must approach it in good faith, mindful of context, and with a practical attitude. It is face-slappingly ''obvious'' what is meant here. [[Copyright]] is a tool for exploiting the commercial value of information by making it, in a controlled way, public. An [[NDA]] is a device designed to prevent that.
 
If information is public, but not yet ''in the public domain'', it is, [[Q.E.D.]], ''not'' confidential, and ''calling it'' “confidential” does not change that.
 
But, as we know, the eyrie overflows with nervous chickens. They fear they have undercooked their goose.
 
But have they? Let us work this logic out, and take “public domain” to have its technical meaning and imagine the dispute that might arise should one fellow have passed to another, under protection of a OneNDA, a information that is in fact widely known, but is not yet out of copyright. For example, a prospectus: being composed not six months ago and at great cost by my counsel, it is undoubtedly a work of a creative effort, if not style or imagination. It attracts automatic copyright protection. It has been published, for all the world to see — with that express intent, in fact — and is in no sense secret. Yet, according to my narrow reading of “public domain” under this contract it counts as “confidential information” which means I may not share it, upon pain of breaching the contract.


Indeed, “public domain” in its technical sense makes a nonsense, since a copyright has no practical value until information ''is'' public: if it is not, it is hard too see how anyone can copy it, whether they are allowed to or not. If the information is public, but not yet ''in the public domain'', it is, QED, not confidential, and calling it confidential does not change that.


But, as we know, the eyrie overflows with nervous chickens. Let us work this logic out, and take “public domain” to have its technical meaning and imagine the dispute that might arise should I have passed to you, under protection of a OneNDA, a prospectus: being composed not six months ago and at great cost by my counsel, it is undoubtedly a work of a creative effort, if not great imagination, and it attracts automatic copyright protection. It has been published, for all the world to see — with that express intent, in fact —


{{sa}}
{{sa}}

Navigation menu