GV, please, tell me it's not true that you're taking the position that Presstek GOT Heidelberg and Fuji to agree to go along with the PRETENSE of wanting the details of their forward planning with Presstek kept confidential. Say it ain't so!
Here's a paragraph I posted to Paul when he made the same argument, which, strategically, for a short wanting to sow doubt, is a foolish one to make, IMO, because it makes one's readership giggle.
"You have made a concession! Presstek is no longer lying
in its claim of a contractual obligation of confidentiality
to Heidelberg and Fuji! NOW Presstek didn't make it up,
NOW there is a contractual obligation, but Presstek
("the question is, who asked for it", you now ask) went
to Heidelberg and Fuji and said "HEY, LET'S TELL
EVERYBODY YOU ARE THE ONES WHO DON'T
WANT US TO REVEAL DETAILS OF OUR
ARRANGEMENTS WITH YOU (EVEN THOUGH YOU
REALLY DON'T CARE AT ALL WHAT YOUR
COMPETITORS KNOW ABOUT YOUR FORWARD
PLANNING,)-- OKAY, Heid and Fuj?"
You made that absurd scenario up. Just to throw in the
pot."
GV, is that really the scenario you're proposing. Is that scenario more believable than Loren's take on confidentiality?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I think I have time in my 15 minute window to paste Loren's post here:
Subject: Presstek -- Stock of the Decade??
To: Jason's Mother
(7498 )
From: Loren
Thursday, Dec 25 1997
5:30PM EST
Reply # of 7750
JM -
I believe you are right...
I work for a company that sells cotton/wood pulps to
the paper industry. One of our main markets is the
filtration paper market, i.e., the people who make the
paper that goes into air/oil/fuel filters. Since our pulps
show up in about 75% of the world's filters, it should be
obvious that we sell to every major filter paper maker
in the world.
With just about every one of these customers, we have
supply agreements that cover supply volume, pricing,
volume discounts, rebate schedules, etc. Guess what?
We don't tell anybody about these details, because:
1. The information is part of the contract, and we have
all signed CDAs (Confidential Disclosure Agreements)
that cover both commercial terms and joint technology
transfer.
2. It would lead to a competitive disadvantage (for our
customer AND us) if this information was to fall into
the wrong hands.
To keep this information under wraps is right to do
both from a LEGAL standpoint, as well as an ETHICAL
standpoint.
What PRST is doing (or not doing) may be maddening to
the shorts (and the longs, too, for that matter), but it's
far from surprising to me.
Paul, tell me, does this business tactic of PRST really
seem curious to you and your fellow shorts?
Loren
[Thanks Loren. --JM] |
