"2) If Minura wanted the fruits of the data that they gave to IMA then they should have made that clear when they gave it to IMA!"
That is the whole point of the nature of data exchange amongst companies, as Justice Holland observed in his landmark decision the Hemlo lawsuit; is that it was unthinkable that a company would share data unless there was an implied or actual agreement in place as to the confidential nature of the data, and the obligations of perusal by a third party. In other words would you share confidential plans and data with other parties if they were not assumed bound not to use the data exclusively to their own profit?
Well no. I didn't think you would show me the treasure map unless we were partners and blood brothers.
This means that while you should make it clear as to the implications of secrecy, you don't actually have to. Other companies should know that if they are looking at secret data, then they are bound not to act without the other party's consent, otherwise why show it? Nobody is that foolish.
Stealing in mining is easy to define. It is what companies do when they say "send us all the data", "lets do a joint venture!" or "we will have to take a look at to see if we want to get involved." A great line I like is where they say, " we would have to know what is involved before signing a confidentiality". If you ask them why, the usually say, "we could already be dealing on the land or intend to stake it, or next door" uh-huh.. I admit it is a thorny question. One company told me they knew about every prospect in Canada because they had a company whiz who had an encyclopedic memory of all the showings that ever were and their exploration history. uh-huh.. and was his middle name Clamejompertz? On the other side of the coin, Texas Gulf, an actual semi-honest company, used to give prospectors an area of interest of the entire township if they brought them a claim!! This sort-of makes other company's attitudes kind of shameful by comparison.
I understand both sides of the question. It is hard indeed to make a deal with a company-prospector if they want to seal off too much land on too little data. If the data is supposed to be "enabling" though, it should be agreed upon first what is and what isn't an item of importance. If the company intends to check out anomalies and stake them as they see fit, then the company must realize that they must sign off on ALL anomalies before looking at them!! This could be very limiting. You may see something in the data that the primary company does not see. So the caveat is the looker. You are hamstringing yourself by being there and looking. If you want the freedom to explore, develop your own targets and don't go looking at other people's stuff.
EC<:-} |
