2 ms·

"Google PR confirmed, to a reporter, on record. Not covered by nda. " Sorry, but no. Pretty much all nda's in the world would disagree with you. Heck, let's

"Google PR confirmed, to a reporter, on record. Not covered by nda. " Sorry, but no. Pretty much all nda's in the world would disagree with you. Heck, let's just take the first search result for "nda sample" and look at it: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sample-confidentiality-agreement-nda-33343.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sample-confidentialit... Stare at clause 2, and you will see that situation would still be covered by NDA. In basically all NDA's, it's about who does it, not about how it's done. (We're assuming #1's requirements were met, as most NDA's also say that. AFAICT, the other people in the room believe #1 was met. Pretty much every presentation by Google ever is stamped Google Confidential and Proprietary)

jfoutz 9y ago
i'm not a lawyer and not interested in becoming a lawyer. Ok, i see your point. I'll go ahead and stipulate that the reporter was a super villain, and google was lilly white in their intentions. Google was very lucky their lawyers were not the brain dead morons that went on record with a reporter about confidential information. There are plenty of articles speculating about how +1 would affect search rankings in 2011, which gives quite a bit of room in 2(a). Google was in a position of immense power, and their clown-car approach happened to work out for them. Seriously guys, the trick to fire is banging the rocks together. Do not go on record with a reporter about confidential information. it's PR 101. Just don't do it. Ever. edit This is condescending and harsh. I'm going to leave it, rather than delete it, because i think big G's PR department should have known better. But maybe take the words with some salt.