# Re: Minolta releases SCSI specs!

Vincent Parrilla (parrilla@ix.netcom.com)
Tue, 21 Dec 1999 12:38:32 -0800

- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
- Next message: Michael Wein: "snapscan310, aha152x(05), de-pnp'd"
- Previous message: Kevin Charter: "Re: transparency option on snapscan1236"
- Maybe in reply to: David Rose: "Minolta releases SCSI specs!"
- Next in thread: Matto Marjanovic: "Re: Minolta releases SCSI specs!"

--------------183448D52A6D0700ADFE0607
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

David Rose wrote:

> I've been in communication with Minolta for well over a year regarding
> the release of the SCSI programming specs for their scanners. Today
> it looks like they finally came through.
>
> I received an email today, that reads (in part):
>
> > We think we found a solution to help you. Minolta is, at last,
> > ready to disclose film scanner SCSI protocol specifications
> > for customers who requested such information free-of-charge
> > basis. SCSI protocol specifications for Dimage Scan Dual,
> > Dimage Scan Speed, Dimage Scan Elite and Dimage Scan
> > Multi are made available.
>
> They will release the specs to me under NDA. It looks like a fairly
> standard NDA to me (I'm not to show the specs to anyone or use them
> for any purpose other than to write a driver, they don't guarantee
> it's correct or promise to provide support, yadda yadda yadda).
>
> However, it does have one clause that concerns me. It reads:
>
> "The Receiving Party [the programmer] shall indemnify, hold harmless,
> and defend the Disclosing Party [Minolta] from and against any claims,
> liabilities, damages and suits, including reasonable attorney's fees,
> that arise or are related to any program created under this
> Declaration."
>
> It's the bit about defending Minolta that troubles me. This seems to
> suggest that if someone cooks their scanner using my driver and sues
> Minolta about it, I'm responsible for Minolta's legal fees. While I
> suppose that's only fair, it's troubling, since naturally I don't have
> money to spare for Minolta's laywers. Have any other people
> experienced or had to deal with similar clauses in NDA's with other
> companies?

I've dealt with NDA's numerous times as I am a consultant
here in Silicon Valley. These NDA's are obviously for the
client's protection in the event that an individual (agent) can't hold
the company liable for any problems that could arise and,
of course, so that the agent doesn't give away trade secrets.
This, however, does not mean that there is a transference
of liability to said programmer in the event that something
goes awry. And certainly none if there is NO compensation
involved from the client to the programmer for the specific task
of writing this driver.

If the programmer then in turns gives away this code for free
within the public domain - there is no implied warranty of
any kind, especially if there is no compensation. (Which
is why it is a could idea to state this in the headers of the
source code).

Now, if the client in turn decides to reincorporate this
"free" driver back into their product line they are taking
responsibility for its use - since they, in essence, are
charging their customers for it. By that point, they
should have fully tested this system. Then say if someone
takes the client to court because of some "disastrous"
problem, they can not pull the originator of the code into
court for defense purposes since they are using what at
that point is "public domain" material.

My 2 cents.

vjp

>
>
> David
>
> --
> Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/
> To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com

    --
    ===================+==================================
      Vincent Parrilla | parrilla@ix.netcom.com
    ===================+==================================

    --------------183448D52A6D0700ADFE0607
    Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

    <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">

    David Rose wrote:
    I've been in communication with Minolta for well
    over a year regarding

    the release of the SCSI programming specs for their scanners.
    Today

    it looks like they finally came through.
    I received an email today, that reads (in part):
    > We think we found a solution to help you.  Minolta is, at last,

    > ready to disclose film scanner SCSI protocol specifications

    > for customers who requested such information free-of-charge

    > basis.  SCSI protocol specifications for Dimage Scan Dual,

    > Dimage Scan Speed, Dimage Scan Elite and Dimage Scan

    > Multi are made available.
    They will release the specs to me under NDA.  It looks like a fairly

    standard NDA to me (I'm not to show the specs to anyone or use them

    for any purpose other than to write a driver, they don't guarantee

    it's correct or promise to provide support, yadda yadda yadda).
    However, it does have one clause that concerns me.  It reads:
    "The Receiving Party [the programmer] shall indemnify, hold harmless,

    and defend the Disclosing Party [Minolta] from and against any claims,

    liabilities, damages and suits, including reasonable attorney's fees,

    that arise or are related to any program created under this

    Declaration."
    It's the bit about defending Minolta that troubles me.  This seems
    to

    suggest that if someone cooks their scanner using my driver and sues

    Minolta about it, I'm responsible for Minolta's legal fees.  While
    I

    suppose that's only fair, it's troubling, since naturally I don't have

    money to spare for Minolta's laywers.  Have any other people

    experienced or had to deal with similar clauses in NDA's with other

    companies?
        I've dealt with NDA's numerous times as I am a consultant

        here in Silicon Valley.
    These NDA's are obviously for the

        client's protection in the event that an individual
    (agent) can't hold

        the company liable for any problems that could arise
    and,

        of course, so that the agent doesn't give away trade
    secrets.

        This, however, does not mean that there is a transference

        of liability to said programmer in the event that
    something

        goes awry.     And certainly
    none if there is NO compensation

        involved from the client to the programmer for the
    specific task

        of writing this driver.
        If the programmer then in turns gives away this code
    for free

        within the public domain - there is no implied warranty
    of

        any kind, especially if there is no compensation.
    (Which

        is why it is a could idea to state this in the headers
    of the

        source code).
        Now, if the client in turn decides to reincorporate
    this

        "free" driver back into their product line they
    are taking

        responsibility for its use - since they, in essence,
    are

        charging their customers for it.
    By that point, they

        should have fully tested this system.
    Then say if someone

        takes the client to court because of some "disastrous"

        problem, they can not pull the originator of the
    code into

        court for defense purposes since they are using
    what at

        that point is "public domain" material.
        My 2 cents.
        vjp

    David
    --

    Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/

    To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com

    --
    ===================+==================================
      Vincent Parrilla | parrilla@ix.netcom.com
    ===================+==================================

    --------------183448D52A6D0700ADFE0607--

    --
    Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/
    To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com

- Next message: Michael Wein: "snapscan310, aha152x(05), de-pnp'd"
- Previous message: Kevin Charter: "Re: transparency option on snapscan1236"
- Maybe in reply to: David Rose: "Minolta releases SCSI specs!"
- Next in thread: Matto Marjanovic: "Re: Minolta releases SCSI specs!"