5 ms·

Story says Forbes and Google had signed an NDA prior to meeting with Google, unbeknownst to reporter. Reporter published confidential details and Forbes unpubli

by loteck 9y ago

Story says Forbes and Google had signed an NDA prior to meeting with Google, unbeknownst to reporter. Reporter published confidential details and Forbes unpublished reporter's story, which reporter is unhappy about. Reporter appears to be deeply naive about the ramifications of Forbes violating an NDA. Reporter also thinks their axe to grind is against Google, when in fact it is against Forbes if anyone, for being a "news" org that signs NDAs.

snarfy 9y ago
You need to read the whole article. The information was released outside of the meeting or the NDA. > Google's e-mail doesn't mention a key part of Hill's story: that she confirmed the information with Google's press shop. If I'd been in Hill's shoes, I would have taken that as a signal that I was free to report the information.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > If I'd been in Hill's shoes, I would have taken that as a signal that I was free to report the information And you would have been wrong. Unless the NDA was nontradirioanlly drafted, this is still an agent of Google's telling an agent of Forbes confidential information. (This is why it is important to consult with lawyers when such contracts are involved.) I agree, however, that much of the blame rests with Forbes' lack of internal controls.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    I've worked for companies in the journalism space. Calling up legal to see if we had an NDA with a company before reporting on them was not exactly a part of the routine for the reporters. If this reporter had no reason to suspect NDA -- and the way in which press inquiries were responded to certainly wouldn't give that impression -- then it's not on the reporter.
    - stickfigure 9y ago
      It's "on the reporter" to keep their employer out of legal trouble, even if it means fixing things after the employer screws up. Or they can just do whatever they want and get fired.
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > If this reporter had no reason to suspect NDA -- and the way in which press inquiries were responded to certainly wouldn't give that impression -- then it's not on the reporter She still violated an agreement her employer signed. If Google decided to pursue this, it would probably result in censure for Forbes. They, in turn, would seek to exploit the reporter's employment contract. Given the number of unknowns, it is difficult to speculate. She acted reasonably, given what she knew, though her reaction with full information betrays naïveté. TL; DR Forbes asking her to take down the article was perfectly reasonable. Her continuing to discuss it now that she knows it contained confidential information is not. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
    - DannyBee 9y ago
      Whether on the reporter or not, it would still be an nda violation, and that's a IMHO reasonable reason to pull a story. I'd also be wildly shocked if the presentation/information given was not stamped "Google Confidential and Proprietary". I have never seen one that isn't in this situation. That is explicitly done to signal that it's a thing covered under an NDA. If your company signs NDA's, and isn't telling people who may receive the information that "getting stuff marked confidential means it's under that NDA", you are eventually in for a world of hurt and contractual damages.
wavefunction 9y ago
She identified herself as a journalist and no-one asked that the discussion be kept off the record. It's also impossible to violate an NDA you're unaware of in my layman's understanding. If Forbes had an agreement with Google it seems like Forbes should have pulled the article themselves. I assume they pressured the author because they don't want to own the responsibility they should.
- _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
  "It's also impossible to violate an NDA you're unaware of in my layman's understanding" You are wrong.
  - michaelmrose 9y ago
    It's impossible to be bound by an agreement others are party to. Its impossible to agree to such without being aware of it. You are wrong.
    - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
      If your company is party to an agreement, you are party to that agreement. "Its impossible to agree to such without being aware of it." Same goes for laws. You do not need to aware of an law to be subjected to it. Especially tricky in foreign countries.
      - michaelmrose 9y ago
        You do need to be aware of a CONTRACT.
        _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
        So not reading my corporate mails absolves me of all wrong doing? Splendid!
      - slededit 9y ago

by loteck 9y ago

snarfy 9y ago

You need to read the whole article. The information was released outside of the meeting or the NDA. > Google's e-mail doesn't mention a key part of Hill's story: that she confirmed the information with Google's press shop. If I'd been in Hill's shoes, I would have taken that as a signal that I was free to report the information.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> If I'd been in Hill's shoes, I would have taken that as a signal that I was free to report the information And you would have been wrong. Unless the NDA was nontradirioanlly drafted, this is still an agent of Google's telling an agent of Forbes confidential information. (This is why it is important to consult with lawyers when such contracts are involved.) I agree, however, that much of the blame rests with Forbes' lack of internal controls.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  I've worked for companies in the journalism space. Calling up legal to see if we had an NDA with a company before reporting on them was not exactly a part of the routine for the reporters. If this reporter had no reason to suspect NDA -- and the way in which press inquiries were responded to certainly wouldn't give that impression -- then it's not on the reporter.
  - stickfigure 9y ago
    It's "on the reporter" to keep their employer out of legal trouble, even if it means fixing things after the employer screws up. Or they can just do whatever they want and get fired.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > If this reporter had no reason to suspect NDA -- and the way in which press inquiries were responded to certainly wouldn't give that impression -- then it's not on the reporter She still violated an agreement her employer signed. If Google decided to pursue this, it would probably result in censure for Forbes. They, in turn, would seek to exploit the reporter's employment contract. Given the number of unknowns, it is difficult to speculate. She acted reasonably, given what she knew, though her reaction with full information betrays naïveté. TL; DR Forbes asking her to take down the article was perfectly reasonable. Her continuing to discuss it now that she knows it contained confidential information is not. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
  - DannyBee 9y ago
    Whether on the reporter or not, it would still be an nda violation, and that's a IMHO reasonable reason to pull a story. I'd also be wildly shocked if the presentation/information given was not stamped "Google Confidential and Proprietary". I have never seen one that isn't in this situation. That is explicitly done to signal that it's a thing covered under an NDA. If your company signs NDA's, and isn't telling people who may receive the information that "getting stuff marked confidential means it's under that NDA", you are eventually in for a world of hurt and contractual damages.

wavefunction 9y ago

She identified herself as a journalist and no-one asked that the discussion be kept off the record. It's also impossible to violate an NDA you're unaware of in my layman's understanding. If Forbes had an agreement with Google it seems like Forbes should have pulled the article themselves. I assume they pressured the author because they don't want to own the responsibility they should.

_Codemonkeyism 9y ago
"It's also impossible to violate an NDA you're unaware of in my layman's understanding" You are wrong.
- michaelmrose 9y ago
  It's impossible to be bound by an agreement others are party to. Its impossible to agree to such without being aware of it. You are wrong.
  - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
    If your company is party to an agreement, you are party to that agreement. "Its impossible to agree to such without being aware of it." Same goes for laws. You do not need to aware of an law to be subjected to it. Especially tricky in foreign countries.
    - michaelmrose 9y ago
      You do need to be aware of a CONTRACT.
      - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
        So not reading my corporate mails absolves me of all wrong doing? Splendid!
    - slededit 9y ago