Disavowal
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Borland had a new product coming out. Suppose they had programmers blogging about some of its features. Suppose that they went so far as to have a convention where they talked about this product at length, talking about everything to do with this product except for release dates, product names, and pricing/bundling. Suppose that they encouraged the community to blog about the new product.
Now suppose that Borland went on to give beta CDs to all the conference attendees.
(I’m not saying any of this is real, mind you. Nor am I confirming or denying the existence of this alleged new product.)
One would presume, if this situation were to unfold, that Borland’s intent would be to build buzz about this new product. To build awareness and enthusiasm about the product, and even to get a grassroots marketing effort underway.
Now suppose that those beta CDs, while having a very high-quality installer (way better than I would have expected for an early beta) and loads of good stuff on them, had one little glitch. Suppose that they still had the same license agreement as Borland had used for prior, nondisclosure-protected betas. Suppose that anyone who installed the software had to agree, as part of the license, not to talk about the product’s features. Suppose, further, that anyone who installed the software had to agree to not even acknowledge the product’s existence.
(You might wonder, in this case, whether I would honor my journalistic integrity by refusing the license terms and continuing to blog about the product, or whether I would give in and go for the cool new toy. You might wonder.)
Remember, I’m not confirming or denying any of this, because as far as I know, Borland isn’t releasing any new version of Delphi. And as far as I know, I was in some sort of sleep-deprival-induced haze when I wrote all those posts about that thing called “Diamondback”. I don’t know what this Diamondback thing is.
If all of this hypothetical scenario were to happen, of course, one might assume that I would try to track down John Kaster or Michael Swindell and see if I could get a license addendum in writing, lifting the “don’t talk about its features” and “don’t acknowledge its existence” clauses. However, until that hypothetical addendum is forthcoming, all of my prior posts about BorCon are (temporarily, I hope) hereby disavowed.
September 15th, 2004 at 1:46 pm
LOL!!!!
September 16th, 2004 at 6:07 am
freakin lawyers
September 16th, 2004 at 8:00 am
Good FREAKIN’ heavens. I’ve enjoyed not reading your blogs on that non-existent topic, Joe.
Sshhh. You ain’t seen me. Right?!
September 18th, 2004 at 8:20 am
There was a bit of "confusion" (being generous) about the licence. You’re allowed to talk about anything you saw at the conference (at least, the public sessions), and anything that’s in the preview you got at the conference. Later beta releases are still subject to NDA.
September 18th, 2004 at 5:08 pm
No: according to the license, you’re specifically *not* allowed to talk about anything that’s in the conference preview. Clause 6 of its license agreement is pretty cut-and-dried about that, right in its first two sentences. (It’s not clear whether the license can really extend to keeping you quiet about what was in the conference sessions, but you could make a pretty strong case saying you’re voluntarily agreeing to do just that.) Here’s the full clause 6:
6. CONFIDENTIALITY. You acknowledge that the Product including its existence and features, and related information remains a confidential trade secret of Borland. You agree to hold this information in confidence, not disclose it to any person, and not use it for any purpose other than the use and operation of the Product as permitted under this License. If you are an entity, you may disclose Products only to your employees who have a need to know in order to accomplish the purposes identified in Section 2.1 and if you have written nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements with your employees sufficient to enable you to comply with the terms of this License. All such use by your employees shall take place solely at your site.
September 24th, 2004 at 6:39 pm
Disavowal disavowal (annotated)
November 10th, 2005 at 8:50 pm
So is disavowal going to become an annual ritual?
May 31st, 2008 at 3:46 pm
[…] in Visual Studio 2008. Then I read their license agreement, and it’s just as bad as the public embarrassment that was the Delphi 2005 beta license. You’d think someone posting a public beta would want advance publicity and grassroots buzz, […]