3 ms·
Yes, that's very odd. Because without such corporate policy being allowed, competitors can easily bribe some employees to loudly speak it out and use it as evid
by summerlight 3y ago
Yes, that's very odd. Because without such corporate policy being allowed, competitors can easily bribe some employees to loudly speak it out and use it as evidence of bad acts/intention. It's almost impossible to counter it as long as they're careful enough to hide such collusion.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Prickle 3y agoThat claim seems incredibly unfair. That is just regular corporate espionage. The reverse is possible as well. What next? Governments are not allowed to police corpY because rival corpZ will violate the laws that corpY follows; thereby stealing marketshare?
- summerlight 3y agoYou're overreacting. Corporate should have a minimal defense against these kinds of attacks in the court. One defense is "Okay, we don't speak this in our company. We made it clear by policy and if someone does at least this is evidence that it's not our company-wide strategy". Of course, whether this claim is accepted or not is up to the court, but interpreting this as a part of evidence destruction is pretty "creative" and I see this as a signal of being a weak case.