On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 17:23:20, Dale Mentzer wrote:
> On 26 Sep 01 at 22:58, Sam Heywood wrote:
>>>> Some MS software carries license restrictions prohibiting criticism of
>>>> Microsoft, and Front Page could not be used to produce a Web site putting
>>>> Microsoft in a bad light.
>>> I don't think such a license restriction would be held as legal if
>>> challenged in court. It seems to be an abridgement of free speech.
> I'm hardly and expert but, tort liability settlements in US Federal
> and individual state courts routinely (probably almost all) have non-
> disclosure aggreements where all parties are forbidden to
> publicly disclose the terms of the settlement. Since these
> settlements are enforced by these same courts it almost certainly be
> well established that such agreements are constitutional. Also
> employment aggreements in business often include similar non-
> disclosure aggreements restrict the freedom of speech of former
> employees. Freedom of speech, like most rights, are not absolute.
Some restrictions on freedom of speech for current and former
employees are very reasonable. To discuss trade secrets or state
secrets with people who neither have the clearance nor the need to
know would be to commit espionage. This is not the same thing as
placing restrictions on a customer's right to criticise a consumer
product. That should not be a crime. It should not be cause for a
civil lawsuit either if the customer can show that he is not lying
about the product's shortcomings and deficiencies.
Sam Heywood
-- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
