Tony,
Seems to me the best purpose of an NDA is the limited one of protecting
against disclosure of critical proprietary information. "To protect all
testbed participants against snipping [or sniping] public remarks" is not
only--as you point out--doomed to failure through innuendo, but also
contrary to the open exchange of ideas, criticisms, and facts that is so
important on a matter of public interest. ...JZ
At 10:47 AM 8/9/99 , Tony Rutkowski wrote:
>At 10:19 AM 8/9/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>BTW, I know that the complaints Ken and Richard Lindsay (among others) made
>>were real, as at that time I was a member of CORE and participated to the
>>testbed.
>
>Roberto,
>
>I think we both observed these developments.
>It's not apparent that anyone has suggested there
>were no "real" problems. Real systems developments
>tend to have such problems.
>
>What's been bothersome is how the NDA - which
>was meant to protect all testbed participants
>against snipping public remarks - has been used against
>NSI, with constant innuendos that all
>problems arose only from NSI, and that
>somehow NSI wasn't responsive, when this plainly
>was not the case.
>
>
>--tony
Jon Zittrain
Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
