In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 12/23/2005
at 12:22 PM, Phil Payne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>a) I have never, ever divulged anything that has been given to me
>under the strict or apparent terms of an NDA. I try not to sign the
>things anyway. You just have no idea how I work.
I don't need to know how you work to know what you posted. I don't
even need to know whether you or IBM is in the right. All that I need
to know is that the dispute exists.
>b) In the specific instance, IBM has refused to tell me precisely
>what they were objecting to back then.
Again, it doesn't matter whether IBM is right to distrust you; it's
enough that they do. It doesn't matter whether the data they accused
you of leaking were already published. If they don't trust you then it
is dumb to expect them to give you data on who is running what under
an NDA. It is dishonest to cite lack of evidence as proof that there
are no legitimate users when you know full well that they don't trust
you. Again, it doesn't matter whether the distrust is justified.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
