RE: Confidentiality clause is back in at Nature

["Rick Anderson" <rickand@unr.edu>]

Hi, Peter --

I don't want to wear out everyone's patience either, so I'll be brief:

I think I do hear your point, but disagree with it.

> My point is that transparency will not save you any money. 
> The ONLY way to save money is to negotiate a particularly good 
> deal and then not say a word about it.  This, of course, may be 
> good for your institution, but it won't be good for the others, 
> whose negotiators are not as shrewd.

If everyone keeps their deals secret, there's no reason to 
believe that anyone will get a good deal.  The seller can tell 
all of us that we're getting the deal of a lifetime, but without 
knowing (or being able to know) anything other than what the 
seller tells us, it may be that we're all getting equally 
screwed.  Or, more likely, variably screwed.  Like I said before: 
I'd rather be confident that I'm getting a fair price than have 
to take my vendor's word for it when he says I'm getting a 
"special deal."

> BTW, in the example of auto dealerships, you say that "you can 
> certainly announce price data to the world."  I do not believe 
> that is true, though I have no way to prove it.

With considerable ease, you can find out online how much car 
dealers pay for the cars they sell, and you can share that 
information freely with others.  Car dealers regularly announce 
their prices online, on television and in newspapers.  And having 
bought a car, you can tell anyone you like exactly what kind of 
deal you got.  I'm pretty sure all of that adds up to the freedom 
to "announce price data to the world." (That doesn't mean that 
everyone actually does share pricing information freely or 
completely or honestly -- but they do have the freedom to do so.)

OK, over and out,
Rick

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