Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/03/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: [Leica] Rangefinder Whiteout Problem - The Answer fromLeica
From: Henry Ting <henryting10@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 11:33:32 -0800 (PST)

About "need to know" basis and "NDA".
I think if Leica is to enforce the NDA, then Leica
itself is equally at fault. Any industrial
confidential information should NOT be disclosed in
the first case. 
I myself is in the high-tech industry and quite often
travels to Singapore (Apple's manufacturing facility)
and believe it or not, whenever a new product is about
to be released, even the manufacturing folks are in
the blind until the day before. Or quite often the
case, AFTER Steve Jobs announces the event at the
Apple convention. As an IT guy in manufacturing, I
really hate that because of all last minute scrambling
meeting the "effectivities", but even then, there's no
guarantee that announcements to the public wouldn't
happen prematurely.

Our arguments here is whether Erwin is liable. I doubt
if Leica is too upset. He might be an insider, but
still I'm sure the knowledge is known to more than
those on a "need to know basis".

- --- SthRosner@aol.com wrote:
> People are missing the point here. John is not
> missing the point here.
> 
> Erwin has declared repeatedly that his evaluation of
> Leica cameras and 
> particularly of Leica lenses and his writing about
> them is entirely objective 
> and that he is independent and free from any
> influence from Leica. 
> 
> Leica Camera AG has provided him with confidential
> information about negative 
> qualities of the new Leica M7, defects if you will,
> that Leica is in the 
> process of addressing. He writes an evaluation of
> the new Leica M7 THAT, 
> BECAUSE OF HIS REPUTATION, HE KNOWS WILL BE WIDELY
> READ AND RELIED UPON BY 
> LEICA PHOTOGRAPHERS AROUND THE WORLD, that omits any
> mention of the defect or 
> the solution to the problem, expected by Photokina
> this autumn.
> 
> I am a business lawyer. In the course of over 40
> years of law practice, I 
> have prepared dozens of non-disclosure agreements
> for clients and have 
> reviewed dozens for clients who were about to be
> employed as senior 
> executives. They differ broadly from the
> "non-disclosure" agreements a 
> manufacturer imposes on photo or automobile
> magazines regarding reviews. The 
> latter simply state that we are telling you about
> this product and, 
> occasionally, giving advance copies of photos, in
> advance of the product's 
> release based upon your promise not to say or
> disclose anything UNTIL THE 
> RELEASE DATE. 
> 
> That is very different from what has happened here.
> Here Erwin has been given 
> negative proprietary information about the product -
> the M7 - and told by 
> Leica NOT TO MENTION IT AT ALL. 
> 
> Does anything better demonstrate the closeness of
> his relationship with Leica 
> Camera and the Company's influence over him as well
> as the reason the 
> objectivity of his evaluations, his tests and his
> writing have been 
> questioned. 
> 
> Seth             LaK 9
> 
> 
> n a message dated 3/11/02 1:16:43 PM Eastern
> Standard Time, 
> jbcollier@powersurfr.com writes:
> 
> > Can you point out to me exactly where he spilled
> the beans? And what kind of
> >  beans he spilt? Perhaps on his newsletter?
> Certainly I have seen no 
> messages
> >  here.
> >  
> >  John Collier
> >  
> >  > From: "Raimo Korhonen"
> <raimo.m.korhonen@uusikaupunki.fi>
> >  > 
> >  > Thatīs what the quote says. And heīs spilling
> the beans now.
> >  > All the best!
> --
> To unsubscribe, see
http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html