Jinx <joecolquitt <at> clear.net.nz> writes:
> But Peter, as you said (IIRC), you have to sign an NDA to find
> out what it's all about. Now, what if, as in my case, the product
> was no big secret after all (ie not novel, perhaps not well-known
> but not hard to find either) and you had prior knowledge and could
> also even show some prior art ? Surely you can't or shouldn't be
> penalised for what you already know ? It's actually the person who
> got you to sign the NDA that is late to the party ? Admitedly they

That's why I was advocating the use of a boilerplate (and carefully crafted, 
by  you and your lawyer), 'confidentiality agreement' INSTEAD of signing a NDA,
which
is basically a blank check. Trying to outguess the legal system is not a good
idea (for the same reason outguessing slot machines is not productive). The 
only certainty about the legal system is usually that it costs more to do 
whatever you need to do than you thought it would. often more than one can 
afford to pay even for common things, like causing labor and retribution laws 
to be implemented.

I think that one should add a clause to any NDA one has to sign, about its not
covering any previous art you may be able to show knowledge of (both your own
and other's). This could cause the asker to want to see your 'cards' to go on,
so, again, it's a touchy territory and minimization of paperwork is likely the
best option.

Back to your case, I think that you need to do is to somehow convince
a lawyer that he needs to implement such a clause retroactively in case of need
(and see what precedents exist). I am not a lawyer and I do not know how it's
done but this would be about the safest step to be taken now imho (without
disturbing the waters).

hope this helps,
Peter P.


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist