82,021
edits
What is Confidential Information? - OneNDA Provision: Difference between revisions
What is Confidential Information? - OneNDA Provision (view source)
Revision as of 16:16, 14 November 2019
, 14 November 2019→{{confiprov|Derived information}}
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{Confidential information}} | {{Confidential information}} | ||
==={{confiprov|Derived information}}=== | ==={{confiprov|Derived information}}=== | ||
Careful with {{confiprov|derived information}} - here we are straying into the dappled world of [[intellectual property]] where a confidentiality agreement | Careful with {{confiprov|derived information}} - here we are straying into the dappled world of [[intellectual property]] where a [[confidentiality agreement]] ought not be your natural first line of defence. (Your [[copyright]] — which is not a function of a [[contract]] — is). | ||
*'''Deriving new information from [[intellectual property]]''': So: taking copyrighted information and fiddling around with it potentially takes it outside the realm copyright. The point about copyright is that it attaches to a ''specific articulation of a creative idea''. If you take that idea and change how it is expressed — if you derive new content out of it — then, potentially, you own that new copyright, not the person whose copyrighted work you modified. You can control a recipient's ability to derive by contract, and it is fair to do so. | *'''Deriving new information from [[intellectual property]]''': So: taking copyrighted information and fiddling around with it potentially takes it outside the realm of [[copyright]]. The point about copyright is that it attaches to a ''specific articulation of a creative idea''. If you take that idea and change how it is expressed — if you derive new content out of it — then, potentially, ''you'' own that new copyright, not the person whose copyrighted work you modified. You can control a recipient's ability to create/derive new [[intellectual property]] by {{t|contract}}, and it is fair to do so. | ||
*'''Deriving new information from [[data]]''': | *'''Deriving new information from [[data]] ''you have been given''''': With ''non''-copyrightable data, you don’t own in the first place: by the lights of copyright law, you did not use your creative juices to produce it<ref>If you had done, you would own copyright in it.</ref>, so a person to whom you supply that information who then uses ''hers'' to derive some new information out of is not infringing your [[proprietary]] right. You don’t ''have'' a [[proprietary]] right. But you might still feel entitled to stop that derivative act: the publisher of a proprietary [[index]] who gives you a feed of the raw index data will not want you adding one more paltry variable, dividing by 0.99999, and calling it your own brand-new index. Here, too there are [[trademark]] and [[passing off]] issues: if you do that, without saying something incriminating like, “hey guys it’s just like the Eurostoxx! it's the Eurostoxxx! with an extra x!” then perhaps you could say you weren’t doing anything to which the publisher of Eurostoxx could object. On the other hand, the publisher of Eurostoxx ''can'' remind you that the only way you can get that data in the first place is from it, and if you want it, you have to agree not to derive it. | ||
*'''Deriving new information from [[data]] ''you have accumulated yourself''''': the last case is where the information you’re futzing around with (a) is not [[copyright]]able and (b) wasn’t given to you by your counterparty in the first place but, say, arose as a result of your execution activities while handling that client’s order. This is a right [[broker|brokers]] are unlikely, in this age of big data, to want to give up. | |||
===Written or oral=== | ===Written or oral=== | ||