Simple Confidentiality Agreement

law firms I talked to did not! like wtf! a simple thing becomes a tragedy!

It is not so easy ... and here I speak as someone who has written and reviewed hundreds of confidentiality agreements. The fact that someone thinks a confidentiality agreement is required automatically starts sounding the alarm. There is risk involved. The assessment of this risk requires a deep insight into the situation which is often more profound than the actual parties to the agreement can enjoy.

My advice is try as hard as possible to avoid the necessity of disclosure of any information in confidence. The best protection is the secret.

If you must give or receive confidential information, do not give or receive more than you do. Receive information in confidence can seriously limit your options for the future.

Consider carefully the scope of the agreement in terms of:
When it begins;
when it ends;
object to be confidential (wide scope if you disclose if you receive or restrictive);
this purpose, if any, the receiving party may use the information to (narrow scope if you disclose, but overall, if you receive);
how long it should be kept secret (if you do not specify, the courts will take a "reasonable" period);
that the agreement is binding on (a person or company and all its staff / agents / advisors? what mechanism the company have to apply what is this?);
if ALL information is confidential regardless of its form (what they see something secret?)
whether the statements are automatically confidential or whether they must first be confirmed in writing (I always preferred automatic, unless my employer is one who receives the information);
If information is disclosed in tangible form (written, images, models), how should it be stored?
.... and so on. As you can see, there is an inherent conflict in how a confidentiality agreement is built. Anyone who has plans to begin over.

I can fully understand why a firm would back away from anyone who claims to have a "confidentiality agreement simple" for consideration. In my case, I was paid to protect the interests of my employer and I could veto any proposal to give or receive confidential information, if I thought it was avoidable, was poorly planned, n ' was not commercially justified, could hinder future activity of my employer or if acceptable terms for the agreement of confidentiality can not be accepted. The time spent collecting background information normally beyond the time spent writing or revising the agreement, but you can not say whether an agreement without the proper education. The simplicity of the agreement is almost irrelevant and may in itself be part of the problem.

Confidentiality agreements wildest I came across were written by a computer company in the world famous ... You've heard of them. They insisted on the clause of "residues" in essence told them that while they agreed to keep our confidential information, it would not break the contract if any of their employees who have had this information "residual" in his head (because we said in the agreement!) used for the affairs of the company's computer. My opinion is that confidential means confidential, but I recognize that "residues are a real problem that could cost a fortune.

If you're determined to give or receive information under a confidentiality agreement and are ready to cooperate fully with a lawyer and pay a reasonable fee for more than just looking on the agreement, then you might find an answer more sympathetic from a law firm specializing in intellectual property law. This is their territory, but.