declan@portia.Stanford.EDU (Declan McCullagh) (08/20/90)
In an earlier article, Peter Deutsch (peterd@opus.cs.mcgill.ca) writes... >I have to defend myself against the claim that I somehow >skated close to the edge of my non-disclosure agreement >with NeXT. Yes, I like NeXT machines and I follow this >group regularly (some of my distractors would say >religiously! :-) I have seen all the speculation re: the >new machines and I have not answered because to discuss >material I have received from NeXT to confirm such >speculation would be such a violation. On the other hand, >I _am_ free to pass on rumours, reports etc that are >general knowledge or in the public domain, not originating >from NeXT. I'm curious as to what you would the legal implications of this action would be. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that NeXT is going to introduce a neon pink 1' diameter sphere with a 25 MHz 68040 later this year. Let's also say that you know about it. If a third party developer leaks this information and you read about it on CompuServe, then post it to comp.sys.next, what happens? Who's responsible? You may just be passing on rumors, but people who have signed non-disclosure agreements have to be quite careful; there are serious legal and moral issues that must be dealt with. Especially now that you've said in a public forum that you're nondisclosed, any rumors you pass on will be taken quite seriously. >Yup. I have been non-disclosed on the new NeXT product line >and thus was allowed to see their new colour machine when >I was in California in June. It was running a beta version >of their 2.0 release of NeXTstep and has a separate board >to do colour (I can say this as I've read this elsewhere, >I'm not giving out any big secrets). There 68040 upgrade >(already announced) should be shipping as soon as chips >come in quantity. >Note I mentioned their colour machine, but then again so >has Steve Jobs in a number of interviews. I also mention >the 68040 upgrade, which _has_ been announced, with a >projected ship date of September. the fact that there will >be a 2.0 version of NeXTStep is also not a trade secret, >as far as I know. Everything in the paragraph above >(except the fact that I've physically seen the machine) was >knowledge I had before I went down to California. You made two slight errors here. First, you said that NeXT had a working version of a color machine back in June; we can now safely assume that it will be out earlier than we have been led to believe by NeXT. Second, you mentioned a September ship date of NextStep v2.0 (*NOT* NeXTStep) - as far as I know, a month was never offically mentioned by NeXT. I have a feeling you just unwittingly confirmed a lot of people's suspicions. What I'm concerned about is what this kind of information release can do to NeXT's hopes of suprise when they introduce a new product. Imagine that Apple is going to introduce a new Macintosh in September or October, but it was delayed due to various reasons. Now, in case you didn't know, there's a special group at Apple which is responsible for analyzing other companies and predicting what they're going to do - in this scenario, they take your post, show it to the right people, and NeXT is effectively scooped, rather than the converse. Or, even worse, people may stop buying NeXTs in anticipation of the new machine. Then what happens if it's late - if it ships in October or November (or even December) instead of September? NeXT is out millions in lost revenue during those two months... I can understand your enthusiasm, but I don't want to see NeXT's position damaged - or their element of surprise lost. -Declan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Olympic Technologies / Registered NeXT Developers \ declan@portia.stanford.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
scott@sage.uchicago.edu (Scott Deerwester) (08/20/90)
In article <1990Aug19.190303.23788@portia.Stanford.EDU>, declan@portia (Declan McCullagh) writes: >In an earlier article, Peter Deutsch (peterd@opus.cs.mcgill.ca) writes... > >>I have to defend myself against the claim that I somehow >>skated close to the edge of my non-disclosure agreement >>with NeXT. Yes, I like NeXT machines and I follow this >>group regularly (some of my distractors would say >>religiously! :-) I have seen all the speculation re: the >>new machines and I have not answered because to discuss >>material I have received from NeXT to confirm such >>speculation would be such a violation. On the other hand, >>I _am_ free to pass on rumours, reports etc that are >>general knowledge or in the public domain, not originating >>from NeXT. > >I'm curious as to what you would the legal implications of this action >would be. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that NeXT is going to >introduce a neon pink 1' diameter sphere with a 25 MHz 68040 later >this year. Let's also say that you know about it. If a third party >developer leaks this information and you read about it on CompuServe, >then post it to comp.sys.next, what happens? Who's responsible? > I've always assumed that once you've signed a non-disclosure, you give up your right to participate in (especially public!) discussions or speculation on what the company's going to do NeXT.. er, next. The point is, *you* agree that *you* won't talk about it. Doesn't matter who has found out what; *you* can't join in. The reason is exactly what Declan states; if it's "just a rumor" that you pass on, *after* having seen the actual machine, people are likely to conclude that the rumor is a lot more than that. You note that people from NeXT don't, um.. "speculate" much about what NeXT is going to do. Signing a non-disclosure means that you won't either. I mean, what would you think if Avi posted an article saying, "Gee, this is just a rumor, but [so and so] reports that NeXT will be shipping pizza boxes in September!" It would certainly mean a lot more than if *I* said so! Saying that you'll only repeat things that you've heard others say doesn't work, because the fact that you (who presumably know what the straight story is) say so too gives away something to the great unwashed that you promised you wouldn't give away. ------- Scott Deerwester | Internet: scott@tira.uchicago.edu | ~{P;N,5B~} Center for Information and | Phone: 312-702-6948 | Language Studies | 1100 E. 57th, CILS | University of Chicago | Chicago, IL 60637 |
madler@piglet.caltech.edu (Mark Adler) (08/20/90)
>> we can now safely assume that it will be out earlier than we have been led >> to believe by NeXT. No. You can assume no such thing. Having a working machine and manufacturing the same are two completely different things. Even having the line set up to manufacture tells you nothing about when a product will be out, since it may be dependent on a crucial part that will not be available in quantity for some time (like a 68040 or 96002). >> Second, you mentioned a September ship date of NextStep v2.0 (*NOT* >> NeXTStep) - as far as I know, a month was never offically mentioned by NeXT. NeXT said that 2.0 would ship with the 68040 upgrade boards, and that the upgrade boards should come out the beginning of the fourth quarter. Whether this actually happens, I have no idea, but NeXT did announce that officially. I don't think this guy gave away the store, or even part of it. I've seen the keyboardless/mousless 1' pink sphere NeXT running, and it's very irresponsible of you to leak that information. Mark Adler madler@piglet.caltech.edu
richf@adiron.UUCP (Rick Fanta) (08/23/90)
scott@sage.uchicago.edu (Scott Deerwester) writes: >In article <1990Aug19.190303.23788@portia.Stanford.EDU>, declan@portia (Declan McCullagh) writes: >>In an earlier article, Peter Deutsch (peterd@opus.cs.mcgill.ca) writes... >> >>>I have to defend myself against the claim that I somehow >>>I _am_ free to pass on rumours, reports etc that are >>>general knowledge or in the public domain, not originating >>>from NeXT. >> >>I'm curious as to what you would the legal implications of this action >>would be. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that NeXT is going to >>introduce a neon pink 1' diameter sphere with a 25 MHz 68040 later >>this year. Let's also say that you know about it. If a third party >>developer leaks this information and you read about it on CompuServe, >>then post it to comp.sys.next, what happens? Who's responsible? >> >I've always assumed that once you've signed a non-disclosure, you give >up your right to participate in (especially public!) discussions or >speculation on what the company's going to do NeXT.. er, next. The >point is, *you* agree that *you* won't talk about it. Doesn't matter >who has found out what; *you* can't join in. The reason is exactly >what Declan states; if it's "just a rumor" that you pass on, *after* >having seen the actual machine, people are likely to conclude that the >rumor is a lot more than that. >You note that people from NeXT don't, um.. "speculate" much about what Boy, did I let loose the floodgates, or what!!! In addition to the above, Declan (I think) made some great points about lost revenue for Next. If you love this company so much Peter, could you please keep a little quieter? Consider this. What if I came out with a "Rick's Next Rumor of the Day" daily posting on this group, and covered all the possible new features that the new Next might have while insisting they were true. By your logic, you could take my resulting lunacy, confirm only the parts that were true, and hence spill all the beans. In all fairness, you may be right that all the stuff you said has already been disclosed. I'm not going to debate that with you since my feeble brain is too busy with other feces to do the necessary research to either refute or confirm your claim. It's also possible that Next doesn't mind blabing too much because sales have been sluggish and they may be helped by speculation on the new "make-it or break-it" machine. I don't know. If you want to see Next survive (and protect YOUR investment as well) you might want to say less next time. BTW, doesn't even saying that colour will come on a separate board (a rumor I have not seen confirmed elsewhere) tell you something about the capabilities of a new machine? Evil people might be able determine capability based on board real-estate issues. Maybe I'm being paranoid, I do after all (currently) work for a defense contractor (sigh ;-). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rick Fanta PAR Technologies New Hartford, New Yawk
jcz@britten.unx.sas.com (John Carl Zeigler) (08/27/90)
I may have some insight to non-disclosure that will help clear up the confusion. Every non-disclosure agreement I have ever signed specifically excluded information I already had, or had subsequently through other, legitimate means. This includes trade press, other conversations, etc. However, to say "I read this in ComputerWorld, and I have been non-disclosed on this topic, and they're right." is at the least a violation of the spirit of a non-disclosure because you are confirming a report or other information with information only you have: your personal witness. This is what the agreement was meant to cover. You should just cite the legitimate source and leave it at that. If you are itching to tell the world something you are "in the know" on, then you shouldn't be given non-disclosure offers. If you just simply can't stand seeing people speculate about something you know quite well, calm down. All information ages rapidly, and the news will come out eventually. Spend the time developing the legitimate purposes for being non-disclosed in the first place. -- John Carl Zeigler SAS Institute Inc. (919) 677-8000 Manager, UNIX Host R&D PoB 8000, Cary, NC 27512 jcz@unx.sas.com