"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

During a recent discussion, you and Gleason got into things about IBOC
chip technology, and in requesting for support of a claim about a
manufacturer and low power chip production, you asked for a link to verify
his claim.

To my knowledge there hasn't been such a link presented. And in his own
defense, Gleason said that such a link couldn't be posted as it would
contain access to proprietary information. Seems reasonable.

But two questions have been bothering me since that exchange. 1) if the
information was proprietary and he was restricted from disseminating it,
why would he even discuss it on a world wide forum like USENet?

There are press releases on the chips so far announced. Confirming that
everything to now is on track, per iBiquity, is not a violation of any code
or covenant. In fact, there are no non-disclosure agreements... simply, the
data provided by iBiquity on such things is intended for internal guidance.
On the other hand, press releases are issued for things like the Ford
deal... the capacity of the press to use releases like ones about chips is
limited in any case

And 2) if the information is so proprietary, with industrial espionage
such a highly refined artform, why would any company put such a thing on
the Web in the first place? Or even send it out of house without some
intense confidentiality agreement? In which case, he'd be forbidden to
speak of the subject at all.

Investor information is simply not all put in press releases, not
necessarily being protected by non-disclosures. By proprietary, I use the
same meaning of the term as used in the context of Arbitron data which is
also proprietary... usable freely in some contexts, but highly protected in
others.


If, in fact, Gleason has access to sensitive, proprietary information,
why would they not sign him to a confidentiality agreement? If they did,
why is he talking about it in a world wide public space? And if he's
talking about it in a world wide public space, why is he not able to post
your link?

Again, follow the Arbitron example. We are free to use the data for sales
but can not release specific details to the press or public, although we
actually may make much more public use than is first apparent.

Definitely not the kind of behaviour one would expect of someone of
some authority in a large multinational media conglomerate,

I don't work for a multinational media conglomerate. You got that all wrong.

where confidentiality is an essential tool of success.

Confirming that a couple of chips are, as said in the press release, going
to be cheaper and smaller and more energy efficient is hardly revealing a
secret. In fact, it is something that should be divulged..