Re: Confidentiality clause is back in at Nature

[Debi Baker <ddbaker@uoregon.edu>]

Good luck, Rick!  I've had to speak to such a lawyer and found 
the major concern was based on his own actions during law school 
where he violated fair use.  Seems we are seeing a lot more of 
this, particularly in the newly-minted JDs.

Regards,

********************************************************************
Debi Baker				Orbis Cascade Alliance
Projects Manager			ddbaker@uoregon.edu
1299 University of Oregon               voice: (541) 346-1832
Eugene, OR 97403-1299                   fax:   (541) 346-1968
********************************************************************

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Rick Anderson wrote:

  (Apologies for cross-posting)

  Some readers of this list might recall recent discussion of a
  newly revised clause in Nature's license agreement, one which now
  requires that the library keep both the license terms and the
  price confidential. When I objected (strenuously) to this license
  provision to my sales rep -- and mentioned the problem on-list --
  I was told that the pricing confidentiality language was going to
  be taken out and that pricing information was going to be posted
  publicly.  Now the word from Nature is that the pricing
  confidentiality language is staying in after all, even though it
  is apparently still going to be posted publicly (if you figure
  that one out, let me know).

  If this bothers you, you may want to register your displeasure
  with the company.  When I did so, I was told that "it's the
  lawyers."  I've asked to speak with one of the lawyers.  We'll
  see whether that happens.

  FYI,
  Rick Anderson

  ----
  Rick Anderson
  Dir. of Resource Acquisition
  University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
  rickand@unr.edu