Conference turris::womannotes-v1

          
                              -< Definite no-no >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I believe quite firmly that it is a rule that you must not
        speak badly of people in DEC-owned conferences. Violation of
        this rule happens quite a bit, but each time it is violated the
        noter, the file and DEC become somewhat liable. DEC conferences
        are corporate documents and was is in them is the corporation's
        responsibility and it can and must enforce rules to protect
        itself. 
        
        People have gotten into legal trouble because they recommended
        against a doctor using corporate resources. It has happened at
        DEC, on the usenet, and at Prime, that I am aware of. Any time
        you do something that could harm another person or inhibit their
        livelyhood it is a serious thing, and DEC will not willingly be
        an accomplice, without tremendous motivation.
        
        JimB. 

    But the author of the note could mail the name of the doctor to
    an inquiring individual.  Nothing that the moderators could do to
    stop that.
    
    	-Ellen

    re: .2
    
    Ellen - I'm not sure from your reply whether you mean VAXmail
    or the Postal Service; I kind of got the impression (from
    the capitalization in the title) that you meant the electronic
    type.  If that's the case, I'd like to suggest that maybe 
    the U.S. mail is a safer way to go.  Jim's points about using
    corporate resources in an area of uncertain legality are
    well taken.  Though conference moderators would not be responsible
    for VAXmail (and, as you point out, couldn't do anything about it),
    a system manager may be liable.  I had heard (with reasonable
    reliability) that there are cases in the appellate courts in which
    the system manager has been held at least partially responsible for
    a user's felonious use of corporate electronic resources.
    
    I'm not sure what the resolution of such cases will be, but my 
    point is simply that in this very grey area, perhaps it's best
    to err on the side of caution and keep the company's resources
    out of the picture (at least the traceable ones; maybe it's
    a good time to reach out and crush, er, touch someone  :-D  ).
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  just for the record, I absolutely do support getting that
    doctor's name out to the world; I'd just like to see it done
    in a way that keeps users and system mgrs. out of the joint.
                

    At least if the geographical location were mentioned, the people from
    that area could find out if they need to be worried about their chances
    of having to deal with a individual who is less than a professional. 
    
    - Vikas

    re: .2, UNDERSCORE .1, .0 -- yer RIGHT !
    
    Recently I got a notice from somewhere deep (very high) in the
    corporation.
    
    The message was simple.
    
    If any person uses DEC resources to any way mailign, injure, hurt,
    accuse, or degrade any other person; whether they are DEC employees,
    competitors, business associates - those persons have the right
    (Legal right) to compel DEC to provide any documents showing that
    such a transgression has occurred.
    
    Calling anything 'clasified', "internal use only", or anything else
    does not protect us (DEC) from being required to produce those
    documents.
    
    By passing 'notes' to send such things to another member of the
    corporation does not reduce the individuals responsibility to adhere
    to the guidelines any more than any other infraction of any other
    corporate guidelines.
    
    Many people have complained bitterly about inequities in the system,
    and many expressed glee and delight when 'their group' received
    protection against harrasment or capricious actions.
    
    Why don't we just help protect the corporation against our own little
    transgressions by keeping the spirit of the rule, without looking
    for a circumvention to the intent ?

    Bob
    

    Thankyou Bob

The letter as mentioned in 472.5
    
    Posted-date: 31-Jul-1987
Subject: WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

To:	See Below

  
 The practice of preventive law - helping Digital avoid costly legal 
 problems - is an important element of the Law Department's function.  As 
 part of that effort, I am providing this brief reminder about the legal 
 risks that can be created when employees are careless about the content of 
 their written communications.
 
 Digital's growth and corporate success make it an increasingly attractive 
 target for litigation.  Over the past several years, the Company has been 
 involved in significant securities, patent, antitrust and product cases, 
 and we must recognize that the potential for additional litigation is 
 always present.  The pretrial discovery process in such cases allows our 
 adversaries wide latitude to request the production of internal Digital 
 documents in their search for evidence to support their claims.    
 
 Not everyone appreciates that even documents marked as "Company 
 Confidential" or "Internal Use Only" are subject to being produced to an 
 adversary in litigation.  In fact, nearly every document that is written by 
 a Digital employee is capable of being introduced into evidence at a trial.  
 
 If documents are not carefully written and are capable of being 
 misconstrued, they may significantly increase the cost and risk of 
 litigation.  In some circumstances, an employee's uninformed statement 
 about the reasons for a corporate practice or decision could even be held 
 to be an admission of corporate liability.  It is, therefore, very 
 important that everyone takes care to avoid inaccurate, misleading, 
 speculative, emotional or overzealous statements in whatever documents they 
 create. 
 
 There are several publications which give our employees guidelines in this 
 area, including DEC Standard 197-0, Legal Requirements and Guidelines for 
 Digital Publications and Software and Digital's U.S. Antitrust Compliance 
 Guide.  In addition, however, all employees should remember the following 
 general rules for careful writing:
  
   o Be accurate, clear and concise and avoid speculation, generalization 
     or exaggeration;
  
   o Accentuate the positive aspects of programs, technologies and 
     products for our customers and avoid speculation about their 
     potential impact on customers or competitors;	
  
   o Never draw conclusions about the legality of the Company's policies 
     or practices or our liability to a third party;
  
   o Avoid statements that could be misconstrued to suggest an intent to 
     injure any competitor, or to dominate or control any customer or 
     market; and
  
   o Remember that any document relevant to an issue in litigation may be 
     produced to the opposition and used at trial.
  
 This memorandum was drafted for a broad audience, and I suggest that it 
 be distributed throughout your organization.