Searching \ for '[OT] Legal disclamers on emails.' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=legal+disclamers
Search entire site for: 'Legal disclamers on emails.'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Legal disclamers on emails.'
2007\08\14@153537 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face

{Quote hidden}

Sadly, there are a number of companies who require that sort of... stuff.

You should see the one from my day job... My favorite part is that bit about
how I'm not necessarily speaking for the company. The first part isn't so
bad actually. I'm lucky in that I run the email server so although I am
required to add the legal text to all outgoing mail for the company, I am
not required to add it to my own personal emails:

"This is a confidential message, intended only for the addressees. If you
have received this message in error, please let us know and delete all
copies of this message. Thank you.

The author of this message is not necessarily speaking for the company. If
you have concerns, please contact our main office.

Any proprietary information contained in this message may not be disclosed."

---
James.


2007\08\14@162019 by Peter Bindels

picon face
On 14/08/07, James Newtons Massmind <spam_OUTjamesnewtonTakeThisOuTspammassmind.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > > This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
> > > information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
> > > law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
> > you must
> > > not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
> > > person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
> > > received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
> > > forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly
> > prohibited.

How are you supposed to return an ORIGINAL email? Especially since
sending it involves copying it at least 3 times each time discarding
the "original".

2007\08\14@190936 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
James Newtons Massmind wrote:

>>> This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
>>> information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
>>> law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
>>> not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
>>> person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
>>> received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
>>> forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly
>>> prohibited.
>>
>> Is this supposed to be a parody?

If only they knew that they are doing parody... they might change
professions :)

> Sadly, there are a number of companies who require that sort of... stuff.

See also <http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/>

Could possibly help someone to convince the creators that something better
can be done.

Gerhard

2007\08\14@202024 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
James Newtons Massmind wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Sadly, they don't know that such disclaimers have ALL been thrown out in
relatively low courts... as an invalid contract.

Completely impossible to take any action against anyone for receiving an
e-mail and reading that little "contract"... it doesn't even fall under
the slimy "click-wrap" type of licensing, because no money is changing
hands.

Completely, utterly, worthless.  Something like your corporation's
lawyers since they don't know this by now.  (GRIN)  Case law moved on,
and disclaimers on e-mail are dead, dead dead.

:-)

Nate

2007\08\14@212348 by Xiaofan Chen
face picon face
On 8/15/07, James Newtons Massmind <.....jamesnewtonKILLspamspam@spam@massmind.org> wrote:
> I'm lucky in that I run the email server so although I am
> required to add the legal text to all outgoing mail for the company, I am
> not required to add it to my own personal emails:
>

The moral of the story is better not to use the company email address
for mailing list if it has that kind of legal disclaimers which may cause
irritation to some readers' eyes.

Apparently it is not that stupid according to the lawyers. The only emails
for my corporate account which contains this kind of disclaimers are from
a outside patent lawyer.

"Notice--This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for
the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others
is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
the sender and delete all".

This looks better since it is only for the official correspondent and not
for public consumption.

Xiaofan

2007\08\14@231700 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Aug 14, 2007, at 7:23 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> "Notice--This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged  
> material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution  
> by others
> is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,  
> please contact
> the sender and delete all".
>
> This looks better since it is only for the official correspondent  
> and not
> for public consumption.

It still doesn't work.  Here's why.

You can't hold me to a contract if I have no business dealings with  
you.  If you accidentally send me something and I normally don't do  
any business with you at all, I can do whatever I want with the  
information you sent.  This has already been to multiple Federal  
courts here, and stands pretty firmly.

Of course, if I used the information you sent me for something  
profitable... you could still bring a nuisance lawsuit against me to  
TRY to enforce this, but it would either be settled out of court for  
a much smaller sum than we were making off of your idea (or we  
wouldn't have started production on it), or if your out of court  
offer was higher than it would cost us to pay the lawyers to take the  
case to trial, we'd pay the lawyers and  let it play out and it would  
be tossed out of court, after many thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Either way, you'd also have to pay those fees for the lawyers on your  
side, so it makes the case a difficult financial proposition for you,  
and not for the person who's run off with your idea.

And the disclaimer on the e-mail would still be worthless.

Pretty ruthless, but all the IP lawyer got you for writing up those  
fancy words (and think about how much he probably got paid to do  
that) was protection from your own customers.  If you have business  
dealings with someone already, there's usually far better ways to  
deal with an information leak than to sue a customer, which never  
goes over well.

So really, the moral of the story is... don't send e-mail to the  
wrong people, or you're in big trouble.  No disclaimer ever written  
on the e-mail will save you from anyone without ethics or morals.  
But such busywork as creating e-mail disclaimers will keep the lawyer  
paid in the manner to which he's accustomed to live... probably very  
well, really.  Find out how many billable hours and whether or not  
the lawyer charged the company for a golf/learning seminar on IP and  
a series of books on the topic, when he wrote that.  I bet he charged  
about 20 billable hours for that little blurb at over $100/hour, and  
added in expenses totaling at least $3500.

--
Nate Duehr
natespamKILLspamnatetech.com



2007\08\15@012209 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Aug 14, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Nate Duehr wrote:

> Completely impossible to take any action against anyone for  
> receiving an
> e-mail and reading that little "contract"...

FWIW, the requests in the "contract" basically match our (and
probably most non-evil companies) policies regarding reception
of unsolicited confidential information concerning a competitor.
Basically "the legal badness associated with doing anything with
information obtained under possibly illegal circumstances far
out-weighs any goodness that might arise from using the info."

But of course it's rather ridiculous to see on email sent to a
mass-distribution mailing list.  (OTOH, code/algorithms sent
to a mass-distribution mailing list have a very fuzzy status
WRT using them in your product.  The copyright stays with the
the original author, and in the absence of an explicit license
of any kind, who knows WHAT status it has.)

BillW

2007\08\15@075121 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Nate Duehr wrote:

> Find out how many billable hours and whether or not the lawyer charged
> the company for a golf/learning seminar on IP and a series of books on
> the topic, when he wrote that.  I bet he charged about 20 billable hours
> for that little blurb at over $100/hour, and added in expenses totaling
> at least $3500.

And probably charged that not only to one company (including the golf
seminar :)

Gerhard

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...