RE: Confidentiality language and the netLibrary license

["Peter Picerno" <ppicerno@nova.edu>]

My opinion, for what it's worth is that I can see no earthly (or
extra-terrestrial, for that matter) reason why any institution should
continue to do business with an entity which demands such a clause to be
included in their contract. Further, I'm not sure that an institution -
especially a state institution - would be able to comply with such a
policy since, theoretically, all documents of that institution which are
not personnal files would be subject to public access and scrutiny and
thus, if one were to want to dig far enough into files and records, the
prices for goods and services would be disclosed (to whit: the $600.00
government hammers, etc.). But, what is most obvious and transparent, is
that this allows the contracting agency to engage in possible covert - and
in this case legally protected - price fixing and price gouging. It would
be like an auto dealership selling you a car and making you legally liable
and punishable for divulging the price to someone else who is
contemplating buying a car from the same agency. Since I'm not in any way
close to being even a legal dilettante, I have no idea of the legality of
this issue in regards to fair trade legislation, but it would certainly be
interesting if someone who was versed in trade law to weigh in on this
issue since I know that this is beginning to become a trend among among
some vendors.

Peter Picerno

Dr. Peter V. Picerno
Acquisitions and Serials Librarian
Nova Southeastern University Libraries
3100 Ray Ferrero Jr Blvd
Fort Lauderdale   FL   33314-7796
(954) 262-4662
FAX (954) 262-3946


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu]On Behalf Of Rick Anderson
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 11:07 PM
To: Liblicense-L@Lists. Yale. Edu
Subject: Confidentiality language and the netLibrary license

I'm working with a consortium to negotiate a netLibrary license.  One of
the terms it includes is a confidentiality clause, according to which we'd
have to agree not to divulge pricing, license terms, etc. to third parties
(such as other libraries).

I run into license terms like this every so often, and I always negotiate
them out; when I negotiated a netLibrary license for my own institution a
couple of years ago, I had no problem getting the confidentiality language
removed from it.  To my surprise, the company is now resisting the same
change.  My contact at netLibrary says that it's because netLibrary has a
new legal crew since its acquisition by OCLC.

Regardless of the explanation for this new stance, I see no reason why we
should go along with it.  Do others feel the same way?  Can we present a
united front?

Thanks,

Rick Anderson
rickand@unr.edu