In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:02:28 -0400: Hi,
answering my own question :) ...unless one of BLP's own backers decided that they wanted someone else to verify the work, so BLP got Rowan to run the tests, then were so pleased with the results that they made it public. > > >Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >> In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:29:07 >> -0400: >> Hi, >> >> That makes a lot of sense, except for one thing. Why would BLP want a >> research >> group at a University to tell it something it already knew? IOW if the report >> was never intended for publication, then why commission it at all? > >Uh.... good question. You're right, that doesn't seem reasonable. > >Which leaves me wondering again how it came to pass that it was marked >"confidential and proprietary". At least in our business, we only do >that with reports intended for use by just one other party, who >typically has already been NDA'd. > > >> >> I could understand if a third party had commissioned the report, however in >> that >> case too, I would have expected a more complete report. >> Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
