After reading through 14 pages of this thread, I have come to a new understanding what type of person it takes to be a Darkfall fan.
It isn't pretty:
Has no real bearing on the DF community, and is superfluous and meaningless in nature.
You must be nieve.
In a sense we are all naive as human beings... again another meaningless statement in nature, and has no bearing on the DF community..
You must accept the word of Tasos above all other authorities in the Universe, including God, Yahweh, Shiva, or any other diety.
In regards to Darkfall, I am in agreement to this; this being your first statement to make some sense and has some bearing to the DF community. The use of (religious) deities into this topic is reckless and I will go no further beyond that explanation, as it should be self-evident as to why.
You must believe that the power of Aventurine is omniscient and omnipotent.
The Darkfall community is split on that, there are those that believe in Aventurine's/Tasos' past information, those that are skeptical and would rather wait for results, and those that think Aventurine is "shady" to say it mildly. However, I don't think any Darkfall poster hear believes "Aventurine is omniscient and omnipotent." as you put it.
You must believe that Aventurine has a legal team that transcends all geopolitical boundries.
Technically speaking there are international laws in place, and measures can be taken. On a realistic level, it is generally understood that it is more trouble than it is worth to go after some poor schmo beta tester who broke the NDA (please consider that they are about to go to launch on the 22nd (barring 11th hour "show stopper" bugs of course), and hence their priority is more focus'd on launch then it would be to persue a violator of their NDA.)
You must believe that the power of Aventurine is such that they do not need to provide information to the general public on their product, including support, actual product launch dates, billing, etc.
*cough* Small company *limited resources*cough*concentrating on development*cough* Now that I've cleared my throat, this has nothing to do with "power of Aventurine" as you put it, but more on the prioritizing, in respect to their bugdet, development of the game above all other company operations and/or functions.
You must believe that anyone that cites precident in antithesis to anything that's being stated by a Darkfall fan should be labelled a "troll" and cast into a lake of interweb fire.
For some yes, for others no... we'll deal with that on a case by case basis.
I didn't read all 20 some pages of this thread because it is really rediculous to even be arguing about this. I really don't know how far trolls will go now with arguing nothing. They have reached new levels of desperation.
Wouldn't signing a false name on a legal document be a crime?
Your mind is like a parachute, it's only useful when it's open. Don't forget, you can use the block function on trolls.
Originally posted by atziluth Please reference where I said it would be impossible for Aventurine to attempt a civil suit against a beta tester. I said that with the wording of the NDA it would be extremely difficult to prove damages. You can sue anyone now without any real cause so it is never impossible. I have been talking about civil cases this whole time. I have repeated said if a tester does not fight the CIVIL case they would be an idiot. Aventurine's NDA is badly worded and has unreasonable expectation which would likely invalidate it in a civil case. This would never become criminal because the chances of Aventurine winning any damages in a civil case are incredibly remote. Even much better worded NDAs do not have a good civil track record. That is why it is highly doubtful that Aventurine would ever persue a civil case against a tester. So to recap.... There has never been a successful NDA civil suit pertaining to game testing. The NDA wording is abhorrently bad. Aventurine would have difficulty proving damages. Even if damages were proven the extent would be minor making the monetary judgement low. It would be unprofitable for Aventurine to persue a civil suit against a tester because of the above. Aventurine is extremely unlikely to try any civil action against any tester. Because of the above most NDAs are scare tactics rather then actual viable legal contracts.
You said earlier that "NDA's are not law".
Answer these 3 questions with "yes" and I will shut up about it as these are my main objections to what you and others have been saying:
1. You can be sued for breaching an NDA.
2. If you fail to comply with a civil judgment the court may pursue you and they may eventually press criminal charges. In addition there are other legal methods of forcing people to pay damages.
3. You agree that you cannot say with 100% certainty that the Aventurine NDA would not stand up in a Greek court.
Originally posted by atziluth Please reference where I said it would be impossible for Aventurine to attempt a civil suit against a beta tester. I said that with the wording of the NDA it would be extremely difficult to prove damages. You can sue anyone now without any real cause so it is never impossible. I have been talking about civil cases this whole time. I have repeated said if a tester does not fight the CIVIL case they would be an idiot. Aventurine's NDA is badly worded and has unreasonable expectation which would likely invalidate it in a civil case. This would never become criminal because the chances of Aventurine winning any damages in a civil case are incredibly remote. Even much better worded NDAs do not have a good civil track record. That is why it is highly doubtful that Aventurine would ever persue a civil case against a tester. So to recap.... There has never been a successful NDA civil suit pertaining to game testing. The NDA wording is abhorrently bad. Aventurine would have difficulty proving damages. Even if damages were proven the extent would be minor making the monetary judgement low. It would be unprofitable for Aventurine to persue a civil suit against a tester because of the above. Aventurine is extremely unlikely to try any civil action against any tester. Because of the above most NDAs are scare tactics rather then actual viable legal contracts.
You said earlier that "NDA's are not law".
Answer these 3 questions with "yes" and I will shut up about it as these are my main objections to what you and others have been saying:
1. You can be sued for breaching an NDA.
2. If you fail to comply with a civil judgment the court may pursue you and they may eventually press criminal charges. In addition there are other legal methods of forcing people to pay damages.
3. You agree that you cannot say with 100% certainty that the Aventurine NDA would not stand up in a Greek court.
Blodpls, I believe atziluth makes a solid argument, please read the following:
"Do Internet Companies Overuse Nondisclosure Agreements?
By Eric Goldman
Nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) are often called the “Silicon Valley Handshake.” In some circles, any conversation beyond pleasantries requires an NDA. However, NDAs have underappreciated and potentially strategic consequences. How did such an important agreement become so ubiquitous, and is ubiquity a good thing?
NDAs’ Benefits
NDAs facilitate the disclosure of trade secrets. A trade secret is information that is valuable and secret. Information disclosed to third parties remains a trade secret if an NDA requires the recipient not to disclose it. Information disclosed without an NDA usually loses its trade secret status.
Thus, using an NDA permits the discloser to sue the recipient for trade secret misappropriation if the recipient breaches the NDA. Further, because the information remains a trade secret, the discloser can sue third parties who misappropriate the information. Additionally, if the disclosed information is also patentable, an NDA may help defer the deadline to file a patent application.
With these important benefits deriving from using NDAs, it’s easy to see how NDAs have become de rigueur in Internet circles. However, further analysis shows some downsides.
Operational Challenges to Managing Information Receipt
Companies need to manage information they receive under an NDA. Specifically, employees must segregate restricted from unrestricted information, know the applicable NDA restrictions, and manage their use and disclosure in accordance with those restrictions. Realistically, most people can’t do this.
Worse, few Internet companies have any information intake or management systems. Without a system, the company can easily inadvertently breach its NDAs.
This problem is compounded by NDAs that restrict all shared information, whether exchanged formally or casually. These NDAs assume that employees cannot properly identify what information to disclose—thus, better to govern all information disclosures under an NDA than lose possible protections. But if employees can’t properly disclose information, how can they properly manage incoming information?
Some companies avoid this problem by using one-way NDAs that protect only information they disclose (not information they receive). However, Internet professionals invariably expect equal treatment, so it’s impossible to consistently use only one-way NDAs.
Avoid Disclosing Secrets
An NDA is enforced through trade secret litigation, which usually involves messy disputes over what information was disclosed, when, under what terms, and how the recipient used it. For this reason, trade secret cases often require an expensive and time-consuming trial of facts and absorb significant employee and management mindshare. Plus, while money damages can be awarded in a trade secret case, money damages rarely are adequate compensation for the actual harm the discloser experienced. Finally, disclosing companies can rarely tell if a recipient has breached an NDA.
Given the undesirability of using lawsuits to enforce NDAs, companies can minimize their risk by not disclosing sensitive information in the first place. It is usually better to avoid the problem than rely on litigation after the fact. Occasionally, a company must disclose its “crown jewel” information, but these events should be noteworthy and thus handled carefully.
How Much Information Is Really Secret?
Surprisingly little information needs to be kept secret. Consider this acid test: given the expense and hassle of trade secret litigation, would the company sue to stop someone from using the information? If the answer is no, then an NDA is unnecessary. Usually a company has a few core really valuable assets that meet the acid test, but most information disclosed in day-to-day business relationships do not.
Anti-Competitive Effects of NDAs
NDAs can handcuff competition. Say two indirect competitors sign an NDA while doing a deal. Company A discloses a future business or product plan to Company B under the NDA. Is Company B now foreclosed from pursuing that plan? While exceptions in the NDA may allow Company B to proceed without breaching the NDA, it has significantly more risk even if it proceeds legitimately. If Company B aborts a desired business or product plan due to the NDA, the strategic consequences can be enormous.
A Waste of Time?
Many people believe NDAs are an essential part of every relationship. But given their strategic and legal consequences, signing an NDA should be anything but routine.
Some companies—notably IBM—refuse to sign NDAs unless they must receive confidential information, and only then for specifically identified information (not everything under the sun). Other companies—notably Intel and Microsoft—include “residuals” clauses that eviscerate NDAs by excluding from the NDA’s restrictions any information their employees remember.
Learning from these examples, Internet companies should teach employees to identify when truly valuable information must be disclosed, require an NDA only in those cases, and keep secret other sensitive information. Targeted information disclosure and NDA practices should speed up transactions by minimizing negotiations, reduce the overhead of managing and tracking NDAs, and reduce reliance on lawsuits to protect valuable corporate assets.
The Author: Eric Goldman (eric@epinions.com) is General Counsel of Epinions (http://www.epinions.com) and an adjunct professor of cyberspace law at Santa Clara University School of Law. This article reflects the author’s personal perspectives, which do not necessarily reflect those of his employer."
Originally posted by Gnomad Please provide citations for your ignorant last sentence and while you are at it provide a citation where anyone has been successfully sued over an NDA breech including the restitution they were required to pay to the plaintiff. Good luck, I have been asking for this for over a decade. If there was ever an example of how to NOT write a contract this is it. Yes I only have a minor in corporate law and am not a practicing lawyer like all you fawnbois are but I would bet I am correct. I routinely have dealt with contracts that pay out more in one month then Blizzard spent making WoW and they sure aren't worded like this PoS.
Here's one that was in the news not long ago, damages were £270,000:
Originally posted by hidden1 Blodpls, I believe atziluth makes a solid argument, please read the following:
I don't agree that he does though, he makes a lot assumptions and his main defence against being sued is nothing more than a lottery. The article that you linked in no way says that breaching an NDA will not result in you paying damages, it mainly talks about difficutlies in managing information.
The fact is that if you sign a contract such an NDA you should not assume that if you break it the aggrieved party will not be able to successfully sue you. People sue each other for breach of contract, including NDA's, all the time. No matter how small the chances of it happening breaching contracts is a gamble. Also he cannot honestly say that the contract we are referring to would not hold up in court.
In some countries such as the UK even verbal agreements can be legally binding, although in practice difficult to enforce, so even if I only said that I would not leak I could be sued.
Originally posted by hidden1 Blodpls, I believe atziluth makes a solid argument, please read the following:
I don't agree that he does though, he makes a lot assumptions and his main defence against being sued is nothing more than a lottery. The article that you linked in no way says that breaching an NDA will not result in you paying damages, it mainly talks about difficutlies in managing information.
The fact is that if you sign a contract such an NDA you should not assume that if you break it the aggrieved party will not be able to successfully sue you. People sue each other for breach of contract, including NDA's, all the time. No matter how small the chances of it happening breaching contracts is a gamble. Also he cannot honestly say that the contract we are referring to would not hold up in court.
In some countries such as the UK even verbal agreements can be legally binding, although in practice difficult to enforce, so even if I only said that I would not leak I could be sued.
I am agreeing to azitluth in that it was my understanding or interpretation of his initial statement that he was arguing that it would be difficult to enforce. How can you disagree w/ that? ... even using you're own words, "... verbal agreements can be legally binding, although in practice dificult to enforce..." To me it seems you're rebutal is the same as azitluth's argument. It's like you're disagreeing w/ him for the same reasons he's making his argument. Honestly, it's starting to appear as though you're replying to have the last word, but that's just my opinion.
Blodpls, I believe atziluth makes a solid argument, please read the following:
"Do Internet Companies Overuse Nondisclosure Agreements? By Eric Goldman
One key difference to consider about that article. In it, Mr. Goldman talks about how hard it is for a company to maintain and enforce NDA's with its employees, particularly with regard to sensitive trade secrets.
Beta testers for an MMO are NOT employees of the company they're testing the game for. That makes enforcing any NDA against them that much more difficult. If going after an employee involves a messy trial that involves finding out what was disclosed by whom, how it was disclosed, and how that information was used, what makes anyone think that a game company -- ANY game company-- is going to go balls to the wall after a beta tester for something small like posting a few screenshots or gameplay videos, or blogging about their time in beta?
On top of that, in this hypothetical case, it would involve a small company in Greece trying to go after a beta tester in another country. Even Blizzard doesn't do that. They rely on Cease & Desist letters, like the one they sent to an Alpha leak site for publishing info about the Death Knight class, new talent trees, vanity pets, and a whole lot more before Wrath of the Lich King came out:
If anyone would have the ability to sue someone back to the Stone Age for violating an NDA, it's Blizzard. Instead, they just have their army of lawyers threaten a lawsuit with a sternly worded letter, and only if the leaks are pretty severe, like at that Alpha site. The letters seem to have worked so far, since I can't find any record anywhere of Blizzard taking anyone to court over breaking an NDA.
Also, one of the commenters at that article points out the obvious, which I should have mentioned long ago. Breaking an NDA isn't a crime. It's a tort, which is different:
Originally posted by hidden1 Blodpls, I believe atziluth makes a solid argument, please read the following:
I don't agree that he does though, he makes a lot assumptions and his main defence against being sued is nothing more than a lottery. The article that you linked in no way says that breaching an NDA will not result in you paying damages, it mainly talks about difficutlies in managing information.
The fact is that if you sign a contract such an NDA you should not assume that if you break it the aggrieved party will not be able to successfully sue you. People sue each other for breach of contract, including NDA's, all the time. No matter how small the chances of it happening breaching contracts is a gamble. Also he cannot honestly say that the contract we are referring to would not hold up in court.
In some countries such as the UK even verbal agreements can be legally binding, although in practice difficult to enforce, so even if I only said that I would not leak I could be sued.
I am agreeing to azitluth in that it was my understanding or interpretation of his initial statement that he was arguing that it would be difficult to enforce. How can you disagree w/ that? ... even using you're own words, "... verbal agreements can be legally binding, although in practice dificult to enforce..." To me it seems you're rebutal is the same as azitluth's argument. It's like you're disagreeing w/ him for the same reasons he's making his argument. Honestly, it's starting to appear as though you're replying to have the last word, but that's just my opinion.
Yes I do like to have the last word, and I have plenty of time on my hands.
Azitluth's has explicitly stated that Aventurines NDA would not hold up in court.
He has also stated or strongly implied that you can ignore civil court judgments and nothing will happen to you.
Go back to his first posts, this is what he is arguing.
I don't believe that you think either of these things are true yourself.
Yes I do like to have the last word, and I have plenty of time on my hands. Azitluth's has explicitly stated that Aventurines NDA would not hold up in court. He has also stated or strongly implied that you can ignore civil court judgments and nothing will happen to you. Go back to his first posts, this is what he is arguing. I don't believe that you think either of these things are true yourself.
Actually you are incorrect. I said it is very unlikely it would. There is a gramatical difference here that you are glazing over.
Could Aventurine attempt to sue a beta tester.... Yes, I already said this was a possibility. They however could sue for damages even without an NDA (as your example with the apple site already showed).
Could Aventurine win said case.... Yes, however unlikely because of the wording in the NDA. Again they could win without an NDA.
Finally... if a defendent lost a civil case and had to pay damages, failure to pay could result in criminal charges. I never said the contrary.
You are working on the assumption (incorrectly) that I think it impossible for the NDA to be used effectively. That is not the case, what I have been saying is that it would be extremely unlikely and cost prohibitive for Aventurine. I welcome you to reread every post of mine in this thread. Nowhere did I say Aventurine could not do it, just that the probability is next to nil.
You also started assuming that Aventurine would win the civil case. This assumption is naive and even you agreed that it is unlikely that Aventurine would persue a civil case.
There is also another loophole that I can see in this NDA. No where does it certify the age of the person who signs it. This can invalidate the NDA for anyone who is a minor as even EU stipulates that a minor cannot enter into a legally binding contract without adult consent.
There are loopholes in this NDA that would make it almostimpossible to hold up in court. I have already gone over some of these. So now I will go back to what I said before... have your last word. I am done in relation to your posts.
-Atziluth-
- Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
I just find it funny that the longest thread in this forum has the least to do with DarkFall.
Just think... all this could have been avoided if DarkFall would have just dropped their NDA a couple weeks ago... like most MMOs do.
Oh well, I guess we'll get to see what the big secret was in 13 more days. Hopefully it will be worth it.
You know it is the best associated with darkfall though. This section of mmorpg.com has the largest number of people talking almost completely out of their hats. All of the contentions about the game/nda/release are all baseless and unfounded. This is the place to be if you want to blow smoke.
Just to respond to a post I saw, court CAN take your money in your account and if you dont have any money in it, they can just take half of your weekly paycheck. Let's say you rent your house and you dont pay. It is a violation of contrat and the owner can seize your salary. I know that well, my sister went there.
At least this is how it work here in canada.
I don't know what backwater 3rd world country you live in, but in civilized nations, if you don't pay rent, all the landlord can do is evict you.
I don't see many thing that are unusual here with their "NDA". The couple of things of note... 1) Having the NDA be binding for 5 years after termination of the beta test. This makes absolutely no sense as the NDA becomes voided once the NDA is lifted. It would never hold up in court and they know it. Why put it in unless either the presented NDA is a fake or Aventurine has no clue what they are doing. 2) Saying that any court proceedings will be under Greece jurisdiction. They well know that they cannot enforce national law if that law is not recognised by the nation that the defendant is a part of. Again this contract holds no weight outside of Greece. 3) They put in a provision that some of the NDA could be found not legally binding. So they themselves acknowledge that parts of this NDA would not hold up in court. This is rather standard however because NDAs and EULAs are difficult to prosecute with. 4) Aventurine implies in the NDA that they do not have to prove and damages in a court, that the court must recognize any breach as irreprable damage with no adaquate monetary value. This is completely untrue and holds no weight in a court of law. In fact this could be used against Aventurine as unreasonable expectations and likely help get the case thrown out.
If this circulating NDA is in fact a true document, then it is nothing more then smoke and mirrors. The true legal value of the document is suspect at best and would cost Aventurine far more to enforce then to actually allow breaches. It was a good laugh though.
Good analysis.
Anyone here being honest should know that as well. Basically NDAs are there to try and keep the honest people honest. Other than that... it's just fluff.
Companies do their best to make them sound all scary and legit. In the end it's just a bluffing game. It just depends on who wants to call it.
I would only take slight exception with #4. It is possible to add liquidated damages to a contract in cases where it would be difficult to determine damages. Basically, we agree up front that if you break the contract, you owe me X dollars, instead of trying to figure out my actual damages. But, they don't have a stated liquidated damages clause.
Basically, all NDA's are the same. You owe me nothing if you break it, and I'll kick you out of the game. You owe me a billion dollars if you break the NDA and I'll kick you out of the game.
In both cases, the only thing that's going to happen, is you'll get kicked out of the game.
Everyone knows why there are so few beta leaks from DF. It ain't the "harsh" NDA. Nobody should be dumb enough to be scared by that. It's the fact that they don't have 10's of thousands of beta testers like most triple A MMORPGs.
Comments
After reading through 14 pages of this thread, I have come to a new understanding what type of person it takes to be a Darkfall fan.
It isn't pretty:
Has no real bearing on the DF community, and is superfluous and meaningless in nature.
You must be nieve.
In a sense we are all naive as human beings... again another meaningless statement in nature, and has no bearing on the DF community..
You must accept the word of Tasos above all other authorities in the Universe, including God, Yahweh, Shiva, or any other diety.
In regards to Darkfall, I am in agreement to this; this being your first statement to make some sense and has some bearing to the DF community. The use of (religious) deities into this topic is reckless and I will go no further beyond that explanation, as it should be self-evident as to why.
You must believe that the power of Aventurine is omniscient and omnipotent.
The Darkfall community is split on that, there are those that believe in Aventurine's/Tasos' past information, those that are skeptical and would rather wait for results, and those that think Aventurine is "shady" to say it mildly. However, I don't think any Darkfall poster hear believes "Aventurine is omniscient and omnipotent." as you put it.
You must believe that Aventurine has a legal team that transcends all geopolitical boundries.
Technically speaking there are international laws in place, and measures can be taken. On a realistic level, it is generally understood that it is more trouble than it is worth to go after some poor schmo beta tester who broke the NDA (please consider that they are about to go to launch on the 22nd (barring 11th hour "show stopper" bugs of course), and hence their priority is more focus'd on launch then it would be to persue a violator of their NDA.)
You must believe that the power of Aventurine is such that they do not need to provide information to the general public on their product, including support, actual product launch dates, billing, etc.
*cough* Small company *limited resources*cough*concentrating on development*cough* Now that I've cleared my throat, this has nothing to do with "power of Aventurine" as you put it, but more on the prioritizing, in respect to their bugdet, development of the game above all other company operations and/or functions.
You must believe that anyone that cites precident in antithesis to anything that's being stated by a Darkfall fan should be labelled a "troll" and cast into a lake of interweb fire.
For some yes, for others no... we'll deal with that on a case by case basis.
Crackbones text in White.
My responses in light blue.
I didn't read all 20 some pages of this thread because it is really rediculous to even be arguing about this. I really don't know how far trolls will go now with arguing nothing. They have reached new levels of desperation.
Wouldn't signing a false name on a legal document be a crime?
Your mind is like a parachute, it's only useful when it's open.
Don't forget, you can use the block function on trolls.
You said earlier that "NDA's are not law".
Answer these 3 questions with "yes" and I will shut up about it as these are my main objections to what you and others have been saying:
1. You can be sued for breaching an NDA.
2. If you fail to comply with a civil judgment the court may pursue you and they may eventually press criminal charges. In addition there are other legal methods of forcing people to pay damages.
3. You agree that you cannot say with 100% certainty that the Aventurine NDA would not stand up in a Greek court.
You said earlier that "NDA's are not law".
Answer these 3 questions with "yes" and I will shut up about it as these are my main objections to what you and others have been saying:
1. You can be sued for breaching an NDA.
2. If you fail to comply with a civil judgment the court may pursue you and they may eventually press criminal charges. In addition there are other legal methods of forcing people to pay damages.
3. You agree that you cannot say with 100% certainty that the Aventurine NDA would not stand up in a Greek court.
Blodpls, I believe atziluth makes a solid argument, please read the following:
"Do Internet Companies Overuse Nondisclosure Agreements?
By Eric Goldman
Nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) are often called the “Silicon Valley Handshake.” In some circles, any conversation beyond pleasantries requires an NDA. However, NDAs have underappreciated and potentially strategic consequences. How did such an important agreement become so ubiquitous, and is ubiquity a good thing?
NDAs’ Benefits
NDAs facilitate the disclosure of trade secrets. A trade secret is information that is valuable and secret. Information disclosed to third parties remains a trade secret if an NDA requires the recipient not to disclose it. Information disclosed without an NDA usually loses its trade secret status.
Thus, using an NDA permits the discloser to sue the recipient for trade secret misappropriation if the recipient breaches the NDA. Further, because the information remains a trade secret, the discloser can sue third parties who misappropriate the information. Additionally, if the disclosed information is also patentable, an NDA may help defer the deadline to file a patent application.
With these important benefits deriving from using NDAs, it’s easy to see how NDAs have become de rigueur in Internet circles. However, further analysis shows some downsides.
Operational Challenges to Managing Information Receipt
Companies need to manage information they receive under an NDA. Specifically, employees must segregate restricted from unrestricted information, know the applicable NDA restrictions, and manage their use and disclosure in accordance with those restrictions. Realistically, most people can’t do this.
Worse, few Internet companies have any information intake or management systems. Without a system, the company can easily inadvertently breach its NDAs.
This problem is compounded by NDAs that restrict all shared information, whether exchanged formally or casually. These NDAs assume that employees cannot properly identify what information to disclose—thus, better to govern all information disclosures under an NDA than lose possible protections. But if employees can’t properly disclose information, how can they properly manage incoming information?
Some companies avoid this problem by using one-way NDAs that protect only information they disclose (not information they receive). However, Internet professionals invariably expect equal treatment, so it’s impossible to consistently use only one-way NDAs.
Avoid Disclosing Secrets
An NDA is enforced through trade secret litigation, which usually involves messy disputes over what information was disclosed, when, under what terms, and how the recipient used it. For this reason, trade secret cases often require an expensive and time-consuming trial of facts and absorb significant employee and management mindshare. Plus, while money damages can be awarded in a trade secret case, money damages rarely are adequate compensation for the actual harm the discloser experienced. Finally, disclosing companies can rarely tell if a recipient has breached an NDA.
Given the undesirability of using lawsuits to enforce NDAs, companies can minimize their risk by not disclosing sensitive information in the first place. It is usually better to avoid the problem than rely on litigation after the fact. Occasionally, a company must disclose its “crown jewel” information, but these events should be noteworthy and thus handled carefully.
How Much Information Is Really Secret?
Surprisingly little information needs to be kept secret. Consider this acid test: given the expense and hassle of trade secret litigation, would the company sue to stop someone from using the information? If the answer is no, then an NDA is unnecessary. Usually a company has a few core really valuable assets that meet the acid test, but most information disclosed in day-to-day business relationships do not.
Anti-Competitive Effects of NDAs
NDAs can handcuff competition. Say two indirect competitors sign an NDA while doing a deal. Company A discloses a future business or product plan to Company B under the NDA. Is Company B now foreclosed from pursuing that plan? While exceptions in the NDA may allow Company B to proceed without breaching the NDA, it has significantly more risk even if it proceeds legitimately. If Company B aborts a desired business or product plan due to the NDA, the strategic consequences can be enormous.
A Waste of Time?
Many people believe NDAs are an essential part of every relationship. But given their strategic and legal consequences, signing an NDA should be anything but routine.
Some companies—notably IBM—refuse to sign NDAs unless they must receive confidential information, and only then for specifically identified information (not everything under the sun). Other companies—notably Intel and Microsoft—include “residuals” clauses that eviscerate NDAs by excluding from the NDA’s restrictions any information their employees remember.
Learning from these examples, Internet companies should teach employees to identify when truly valuable information must be disclosed, require an NDA only in those cases, and keep secret other sensitive information. Targeted information disclosure and NDA practices should speed up transactions by minimizing negotiations, reduce the overhead of managing and tracking NDAs, and reduce reliance on lawsuits to protect valuable corporate assets.
The Author: Eric Goldman (eric@epinions.com) is General Counsel of Epinions (http://www.epinions.com) and an adjunct professor of cyberspace law at Santa Clara University School of Law. This article reflects the author’s personal perspectives, which do not necessarily reflect those of his employer."
Here's one that was in the news not long ago, damages were £270,000:
itn.co.uk/news/97407bdcf9774c75c80fb12ba37ed75a.html
That's about Jennifer Lopez, not a game NDA. Geez.
The best quote of this thread:
[quote]
The logic, it burns.
[/quote]
I don't agree that he does though, he makes a lot assumptions and his main defence against being sued is nothing more than a lottery. The article that you linked in no way says that breaching an NDA will not result in you paying damages, it mainly talks about difficutlies in managing information.
The fact is that if you sign a contract such an NDA you should not assume that if you break it the aggrieved party will not be able to successfully sue you. People sue each other for breach of contract, including NDA's, all the time. No matter how small the chances of it happening breaching contracts is a gamble. Also he cannot honestly say that the contract we are referring to would not hold up in court.
In some countries such as the UK even verbal agreements can be legally binding, although in practice difficult to enforce, so even if I only said that I would not leak I could be sued.
I don't agree that he does though, he makes a lot assumptions and his main defence against being sued is nothing more than a lottery. The article that you linked in no way says that breaching an NDA will not result in you paying damages, it mainly talks about difficutlies in managing information.
The fact is that if you sign a contract such an NDA you should not assume that if you break it the aggrieved party will not be able to successfully sue you. People sue each other for breach of contract, including NDA's, all the time. No matter how small the chances of it happening breaching contracts is a gamble. Also he cannot honestly say that the contract we are referring to would not hold up in court.
In some countries such as the UK even verbal agreements can be legally binding, although in practice difficult to enforce, so even if I only said that I would not leak I could be sued.
I am agreeing to azitluth in that it was my understanding or interpretation of his initial statement that he was arguing that it would be difficult to enforce. How can you disagree w/ that? ... even using you're own words, "... verbal agreements can be legally binding, although in practice dificult to enforce..." To me it seems you're rebutal is the same as azitluth's argument. It's like you're disagreeing w/ him for the same reasons he's making his argument. Honestly, it's starting to appear as though you're replying to have the last word, but that's just my opinion.
One key difference to consider about that article. In it, Mr. Goldman talks about how hard it is for a company to maintain and enforce NDA's with its employees, particularly with regard to sensitive trade secrets.
Beta testers for an MMO are NOT employees of the company they're testing the game for. That makes enforcing any NDA against them that much more difficult. If going after an employee involves a messy trial that involves finding out what was disclosed by whom, how it was disclosed, and how that information was used, what makes anyone think that a game company -- ANY game company-- is going to go balls to the wall after a beta tester for something small like posting a few screenshots or gameplay videos, or blogging about their time in beta?
On top of that, in this hypothetical case, it would involve a small company in Greece trying to go after a beta tester in another country. Even Blizzard doesn't do that. They rely on Cease & Desist letters, like the one they sent to an Alpha leak site for publishing info about the Death Knight class, new talent trees, vanity pets, and a whole lot more before Wrath of the Lich King came out:
www.wowinsider.com/2008/06/20/blizzard-deals-alpha-leak-site-a-potential-killing-blow/
If anyone would have the ability to sue someone back to the Stone Age for violating an NDA, it's Blizzard. Instead, they just have their army of lawyers threaten a lawsuit with a sternly worded letter, and only if the leaks are pretty severe, like at that Alpha site. The letters seem to have worked so far, since I can't find any record anywhere of Blizzard taking anyone to court over breaking an NDA.
Also, one of the commenters at that article points out the obvious, which I should have mentioned long ago. Breaking an NDA isn't a crime. It's a tort, which is different:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort
I don't agree that he does though, he makes a lot assumptions and his main defence against being sued is nothing more than a lottery. The article that you linked in no way says that breaching an NDA will not result in you paying damages, it mainly talks about difficutlies in managing information.
The fact is that if you sign a contract such an NDA you should not assume that if you break it the aggrieved party will not be able to successfully sue you. People sue each other for breach of contract, including NDA's, all the time. No matter how small the chances of it happening breaching contracts is a gamble. Also he cannot honestly say that the contract we are referring to would not hold up in court.
In some countries such as the UK even verbal agreements can be legally binding, although in practice difficult to enforce, so even if I only said that I would not leak I could be sued.
I am agreeing to azitluth in that it was my understanding or interpretation of his initial statement that he was arguing that it would be difficult to enforce. How can you disagree w/ that? ... even using you're own words, "... verbal agreements can be legally binding, although in practice dificult to enforce..." To me it seems you're rebutal is the same as azitluth's argument. It's like you're disagreeing w/ him for the same reasons he's making his argument. Honestly, it's starting to appear as though you're replying to have the last word, but that's just my opinion.
Yes I do like to have the last word, and I have plenty of time on my hands.
Azitluth's has explicitly stated that Aventurines NDA would not hold up in court.
He has also stated or strongly implied that you can ignore civil court judgments and nothing will happen to you.
Go back to his first posts, this is what he is arguing.
I don't believe that you think either of these things are true yourself.
I just find it funny that the longest thread in this forum has the least to do with DarkFall.
Just think... all this could have been avoided if DarkFall would have just dropped their NDA a couple weeks ago... like most MMOs do.
Oh well, I guess we'll get to see what the big secret was in 13 more days. Hopefully it will be worth it.
Actually you are incorrect. I said it is very unlikely it would. There is a gramatical difference here that you are glazing over.
Could Aventurine attempt to sue a beta tester.... Yes, I already said this was a possibility. They however could sue for damages even without an NDA (as your example with the apple site already showed).
Could Aventurine win said case.... Yes, however unlikely because of the wording in the NDA. Again they could win without an NDA.
Finally... if a defendent lost a civil case and had to pay damages, failure to pay could result in criminal charges. I never said the contrary.
You are working on the assumption (incorrectly) that I think it impossible for the NDA to be used effectively. That is not the case, what I have been saying is that it would be extremely unlikely and cost prohibitive for Aventurine. I welcome you to reread every post of mine in this thread. Nowhere did I say Aventurine could not do it, just that the probability is next to nil.
You also started assuming that Aventurine would win the civil case. This assumption is naive and even you agreed that it is unlikely that Aventurine would persue a civil case.
There is also another loophole that I can see in this NDA. No where does it certify the age of the person who signs it. This can invalidate the NDA for anyone who is a minor as even EU stipulates that a minor cannot enter into a legally binding contract without adult consent.
There are loopholes in this NDA that would make it almost impossible to hold up in court. I have already gone over some of these. So now I will go back to what I said before... have your last word. I am done in relation to your posts.
-Atziluth-
- Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
You know it is the best associated with darkfall though. This section of mmorpg.com has the largest number of people talking almost completely out of their hats. All of the contentions about the game/nda/release are all baseless and unfounded. This is the place to be if you want to blow smoke.
------------------
Originally posted by javac
well i'm 35 and have a PhD in science, and then 10 years experience in bioinformatics... you?
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/218865/page/8
I don't know what backwater 3rd world country you live in, but in civilized nations, if you don't pay rent, all the landlord can do is evict you.
And here we are almost a month later... Big surprise the NDA is STILL up.
Good analysis.
Anyone here being honest should know that as well. Basically NDAs are there to try and keep the honest people honest. Other than that... it's just fluff.
Companies do their best to make them sound all scary and legit. In the end it's just a bluffing game. It just depends on who wants to call it.
I would only take slight exception with #4. It is possible to add liquidated damages to a contract in cases where it would be difficult to determine damages. Basically, we agree up front that if you break the contract, you owe me X dollars, instead of trying to figure out my actual damages. But, they don't have a stated liquidated damages clause.
Basically, all NDA's are the same. You owe me nothing if you break it, and I'll kick you out of the game. You owe me a billion dollars if you break the NDA and I'll kick you out of the game.
In both cases, the only thing that's going to happen, is you'll get kicked out of the game.
Everyone knows why there are so few beta leaks from DF. It ain't the "harsh" NDA. Nobody should be dumb enough to be scared by that. It's the fact that they don't have 10's of thousands of beta testers like most triple A MMORPGs.