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: "Pike, Michael (IHS/HQ)" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:36:40 -0400
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- Thread-topic: [Fed-Talk] iPhone SDK / OS 4 - Confidential
I've seen the heavy hand of apple smack a developer out of iPhone dev existence so I never say anything just to cover myself. What makes me mad is we would keep our software secret until release to be safe. Then some jerk posts screen shots to macworld for their own product which is blatant nda violation but they get free press.
When iPhone 2.0 debuted we were explicitly warned that if any of our press releases hit before official 2.0 release at 9am est our apps would be pulled and we would be booted out of the dev program.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 19, 2010, at 11:26 AM, "Dave Schroeder" <email@hidden> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Dan Morrison wrote:
>
>>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?
>
> No, it is not. Again, please note:
>
>> 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.
>
> Apple's own NDA exempts material that is in the public domain, including "information that is independently developed by you without the use of any Apple Confidential Information", i.e., informed speculation.
>
> Again, I fully realize that this creates "gray areas".
>
>>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 theFederal government sector deal with on a regular basis.
>
>
> The weapons system analogy is flawed; I didn't say or imply that someone under NDA should confirm information that is in the public domain based on knowledge of material under NDA, or use the fact that information is publicly available as an excuse to violate their NDA, or as a shield from legitimate provisions of the NDA for the protection of Apple Confidential information. What they CAN do is reference that material, note it as being rumor or unconfirmed as necessary, and allow individuals to make their own judgment as to its veracity. You just don't pretend that a whole pool of information doesn't exist because you're covered by an NDA, especially when the NDA itself makes an explicit exemption for such information.
>
> - Dave
> <smime.p7s>
> _______________________________________________
> 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