Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 14, No. 229.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
<http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
[1] From: Bill Kretzschmar <billk@atlas.uga.edu> (28)
Subject: Humanist: Re: 14.0212 secret dictionary project
[2] From: Jean-Claude =?iso-8859-1?Q?Gu=E9don?= (15)
<guedon@LITTCO.UMontreal.CA> (by
Subject: Re: 14.0212 secret dictionary project
[3] From: "P. T. Rourke" <ptrourke@mediaone.net> (18)
Subject: Re: 14.0212 secret dictionary project
[4] From: "Erik Ringmar" <e.ringmar@lse.ac.uk> (9)
Subject: Re: 14.0212 secret dictionary project
[5] From: EditorAnn@aol.com (3)
Subject: Fwd: 14.0212 secret dictionary project
[6] From: "Osher Doctorow" <osher@ix.netcom.com> (15)
Subject: Re: 14.0212 secret dictionary project
[7] From: "Chris McMahon" <pharmakeus@hotmail.com> (3)
Subject: Re: 14.0212 secret dictionary project
[8] From: "Chris McMahon" <pharmakeus@hotmail.com> (2)
Subject: Re: 14.0212 secret dictionary project
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:11:53 +0100
From: Bill Kretzschmar <billk@atlas.uga.edu>
Subject: Humanist: Re: 14.0212 secret dictionary project
It is quite normal for consultants to sign non-disclosure agreements before
they begin work on a commercial project. Of course this rubs us academics
the wrong way since we value academic freedom and freedom of
information--but the Bloomsbury/Encarta Project is commercial, not
academic. I was one of those who signed such an agreement for the first
stage of the project, now published, and became a member of its advisory
board. I thought twice about it, but the commercial nature of the work was
the overriding factor.
This is an important issue, I think. Since information in the humanities
now has growing commercial value, many of us will be asked to participate
in commercial ventures. We should be clear about the terms under which we
participate. Our colleagues in engineering, business, and other fields
have had consulting opportunities for some time, and they have had to
wrestle with this topic. My university has rules about consulting, which
are designed to regulate potential conflicts of interest. If you want the
money from consulting, you have to agree with the terms, both from your
institution and from your commercial employer. If you want to be a pure
idealist about freedom of information, you must be satisfied with your
humanities salary.
In my own case, I freely give away my research results when they come from
an academic endeavor, and I also sign consulting agreements that involve
proprietary information while observing university regulations--I see no
conflict between these two activities.
*****
Bill Kretzschmar Professor of English and Linguistics
Dept. of English Phone: 706-542-2246
University of Georgia Fax: 706-583-0027
Athens, GA 30602-6205 Atlas Web Site: us.english.uga.edu
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:12:36 +0100
From: Jean-Claude =?iso-8859-1?Q?Gu=E9don?=
<guedon@LITTCO.UMontreal.CA> (by
Subject: Re: 14.0212 secret dictionary project
Thank you for reminding all of us that some very basic principles can still
guide the behavior of academics.
And thank you for reminding us that such principles can still be put ahead of
money.
Best,
Jean-Claude Gudon
-- Jean-Claude Gudon Dpartement de littrature compare Universit de Montral CP 6128, Succursale Centre-ville Montral, Qc H3C 3J7 CanadaTl. : 1-514-343-6208 Tlcopie : 1-514-343-2211 Courriel : guedon@littco.umontreal.ca
--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:13:09 +0100 From: "P. T. Rourke" <ptrourke@mediaone.net> Subject: Re: 14.0212 secret dictionary project
> I was recently approached by an editor from Bloomsbury/Encarta to work on a > college edition of their Encarta Dictionary, but told that before I could > be informed of the exact nature of the project or the terms of my > employment I would have to sign a confidentiality agreement containing the > following alarming language: > Does anybody else find this as bizarre as I do? The editor defended it as > empty legaleze but didn't offer to waive any of the clauses.
> Obviously, I didn't sign it; and am among the ignorant of the inner essence > of this hermetic endeavor, but free to comment. Those of you who have not > taken Microsoft's blood oath, what is your reaction?
That it is probably what you should expect from the folks who hold a patent on electronic style sheets, a patent that isn't worth the paper it's written on, as it's clearly prior art. They're using every possible legal method they can to proprietize both content and delivery - indeed, I'd say that with .NET one could argue that they are trying to proprietize the 'net itself. That's how monopolies work.
Patrick Rourke
--[4]------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:13:46 +0100 From: "Erik Ringmar" <e.ringmar@lse.ac.uk> Subject: Re: 14.0212 secret dictionary project
Dear Paul,
Good for you. Someone has to defend the principles of publicity on which scholarship rests. It seems Microsoft is doing to ideas what Monsanto is doing to our genes. What will happen when every bit of public space is copyrighted and privatised?
yours,
Erik
Erik Ringmar
Dept of Government LSE
--[5]------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:14:25 +0100 From: EditorAnn@aol.com Subject: Fwd: 14.0212 secret dictionary project
They left out an essential clause:
"If you agree to these terms, and so signify by affixing your signature, 5 minutes after returning it by mail, you will self-destruct, thereby obliterating all remaining evidence that we have ever been in communication."
--[6]------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:15:01 +0100 From: "Osher Doctorow" <osher@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: 14.0212 secret dictionary project
From: Osher Doctorow, osher@ix.netcom.com, Fri. Sept. 8, 2000, 12:07AM
I have not subscribed to any blood oath, so I can say that the whole affair is most curious. Microsoft is headquartered in Washington State, is it not, which is where you are. If the contact was really from Microsoft, then perhaps the person thought that Washington residents are likely to support Microsoft even in bizarre circumstances. If the contact was not from Microsoft, then that is much trouble about a dictionary. Perhaps it was intended to either impugn Microsoft or give the impression of impugning Microsoft from one of Microsoft's mis-inspired friends or enemies. If Bill Gates would give his money to Humanities Discussion, this problem could never arise, since we would all soon make dictionaries and encyclopedias of every computer related humanities related problem under the sun (more or less). In fact, we can start a campaign entitled "Dollar bills from Bill." It might have to be limited to the USA, but I for one would share with my colleagues in Great Britain.
Osher
--[7]------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:15:33 +0100 From: "Chris McMahon" <pharmakeus@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: 14.0212 secret dictionary project
My reaction? Paranoia!
>Those of you who have not >taken Microsoft's blood oath, what is your reaction?
:) Chris
--[8]------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:16:21 +0100 From: "Chris McMahon" <pharmakeus@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: 14.0212 secret dictionary project
Sorry. I meant so say "paranoia". Please, don't talk so loud.
:) Chris
(who said that?)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 09:08:19 CUT