Re: [Fed-Talk] iPhone SDK / OS 4 - Confidential
Re: [Fed-Talk] iPhone SDK / OS 4 - Confidential
- Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] iPhone SDK / OS 4 - Confidential
- From: James Alcasid <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:19:12 -0400
- Thread-topic: [Fed-Talk] iPhone SDK / OS 4 - Confidential
Correct, Third party reporting will not change Apple's NDA. There is a gray
area but it is best interpreted by them.
I think the NDA is pretty clear and this is probably the worst forum to
discuss NDA material anyway.
--
James Alcasíd | VeriSolv Technologies
Department of Veterans Affairs | Enterprise Infrastructure Engineering
470 L¹Enfant Plaza SW Suite 3100, Washington DC 20024
Office (202) 245-4573, Mobile (202) 340-8930
Note:
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis-transmission. If
you receive this message in error, immediately delete it and all copies of
it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender.
You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or
copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Any
views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except
where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorized to state
them to be the views of any such entity.
P Save Paper Do you really need to print this e-mail?
13:3
> From: Dan Morrison <email@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:13:41 -0600
> To: Fed Talk <email@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] iPhone SDK / OS 4 - Confidential
>
> FWIW, isn't an NDA similar to Government classified information
> guidelines, in that someone who is cleared should not reference third-
> party reports, thereby lending them legitimacy? For example, just
> because Popular Mechanics prints specs on a weapon system does not
> make those specs unclassified, and someone with a clearance may not
> comment on their accuracy.
>
> This is a concept that most professionals in the Federal government
> sector deal with on a regular basis.
>
> Dan
>
> On Apr 19, 2010, at 1104 , Dave Schroeder wrote:
>
>> On Apr 19, 2010, at 10:00 AM, Taylor Armstrong wrote:
>>
>>> Guys, with all due respect, why is Shawn having to remind any of us
>>> of the NDA?
>>>
>>> Of all lists, I would expect the Fed-Talk to be a forum of
>>> professionals who take this stuff seriously. This isn't Insanely-
>>> Mac.com.
>>>
>>> Apple HAS recently created forums on the developer site where
>>> things can be discussed under the umbrella of the NDA - if you want
>>> to discuss things that are, or MIGHT be covered under the NDA, I
>>> suggest that is the appropriate place to do so. The Federal ethics
>>> regulations often cite the "appearance" of impropriety as the line
>>> that you shouldn't cross - it doesnt' matter if you're breaking the
>>> NDA or not, this just isn't the place.
>>
>> The problem is when things are discussed/revealed publicly on open
>> internet sites, or in the press, e.g.:
>>
>> http://gizmodo.com/5520164/this-is-apples-next-iphone
>>
>> I AM bound by Apple's NDA, but I am NOT in violation of an NDA by
>> referring someone to openly and publicly published material that may
>> or may not speak to someone's question (e.g., if there were a report
>> that confirmed or refuted something like email certificate support
>> in iPhone OS 4.0).
>>
>> Please note that I am not saying that folks shouldn't act like
>> professionals. But at the same time, we can't simply pretend that
>> public reporting doesn't exist.
>>
>> Apple's standard NDA explicitly allows for this:
>>
>>> Apple Confidential Information will not include: (i) information
>>> that is generally and legitimately available to the public through
>>> no fault or breach of yours, (ii) information that is generally
>>> made available to the public by Apple, (iii) information that is
>>> independently developed by you without the use of any Apple
>>> Confidential Information, (iv) information that was rightfully
>>> obtained from a third party who had the right to transfer or
>>> disclose it to you without limitation, or (v) any third party
>>> software and/or documentation provided to you by Apple and
>>> accompanied by licensing terms that do not impose confidentiality
>>> obligations on the use or disclosure of such software and/or
>>> documentation.
>>
>> <http://developer.apple.com/programs/terms/registered_apple_developer_2010030
>> 1.pdf
>>>
>>
>> Please refer to your particular NDA for direction on treatment of
>> Apple Confidential information, or information that has become
>> publicly available through no fault or action of your own.
>>
>> Now, when it gets to *discussing* it in any substantive way -- or
>> depending on any unconfirmed information or rumors, which would be
>> foolish -- that's still more of a gray area: we're not here to slap
>> Apple in the face, but there is a large volume of public reporting
>> of information about iPhone OS 4.0, beyond what information Apple
>> has provided on its public web site, and we'd be equally foolish to
>> pretend it doesn't exist.
>>
>> - Dave _______________________________________________
>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>> Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>
>> This email sent to email@hidden
>
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>
> This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden