Can a NDA define that, any information disclosed is incorrect and invalid? Can a non-disclosure agreement specify that, after signing, any information disclosed or will be disclosed to any third party without permission is invalid, incorrect, and not factual, and this agreement overrules any other agreements? Background: Alice and Bob signed a NDA regarding The Project. Without permission, Bob disclosed The Project to Alice's competitor Cindy. Cindy therefore initiated a lawsuit (for example, a patent trolling lawsuit) against Alice. Can Alice use the abovementioned clause to reaffirm that the information disclosed by Bob is not facts? From my limited understanding, Alice can only punish Bob for breaching contract but she cannot protect herself from patent trolling suit with that NDA.
Against Bob: yes; Against Cindy: no I'm going to borrow @Trish's example because it's a good one although the conclusions they reach are wrong. Alice made a green box. Bob signs an NDA never to tell anyone that Alice made a green box, and there is a clause in it that if the NDA is breached, the box is red. Bob tells Cindy that Alice made a green box. Cindy has a patent on making green boxes. Cindy sues Alice and in the lawsuit puts Bob on the stand. Situation 1 So, the box is objectively green and objectively a breach of Cindy's patent on green boxes. Bob is on the stand and is required to answer questions honestly and no contract can prevent him from doing so. He testifies that the box is green. This would be a breach of contract except that a clause that requires a breach of the law (perjury in this case) is void for public policy reasons so Bob cannot be sued for this. However, he can be sued for the initial breach - he may have a public policy defense here because Alice was breaking the law, however, it’s easy enough to construct a scenario where Alice was innocent but suffered loss from Bob’s disclosure. Cindy can say what she likes because she is not bound by the NDA. Cindy wins, Alice loses. Situation 2 Cindy dies - after a long and happy life so we won't grieve too much. To Bob's surprise, he inherits Cindy's green box patent of which he was previously in complete ignorance of. Bob sues Alice for breaching Cindy's now his, patent. So, the box is objectively green and objectively a breach of Cindy's patent on green boxes. However, Bob agreed with Alice in the contract that the box is red and so, legally for matters between Alice and Bob the box is legally red (notwithstanding that everyone knows it's green) and is not in breach of Bob's patent. This sort of stuff has a name - a legal fiction. Adoption is a legal fiction - adoptive parents are (legally) parents; biological parents of adopted children are (legally) strangers. Alice wins, Bob loses.
would it be interpreted in favor of the person who did not draft the terms? Yes, provided that the interpretation is reasonable. That is known as the doctrine of contra proferentem. Here, the term "deliverables and associated documents" might entail a contradiction if that term [allegedly or literally] encompasses "source code or content". That depends on what definition(s) of "deliverables and associated documents" can be adduced from the contract. The term could refer to items that are not "source code or content", such as the binary files (i.e., executables and DLLs), instructions &amp; documentation on how to operate and troubleshoot the application, and so forth. In that case, there would be no contradiction because there is no overlap between these items and the source code. if term A) is written on line 10 and term B) is written on line 11, is it resonable to assume term B) takes precedence or modifies term A? No. The sequence of clauses/terms itself does not determine which one outweighs or qualifies the other. Instead, the language used in the contract is indicative of the parties' intent and therefore how the terms of that contract relate to each other.
False statements are generally protected by the First Amendment. If the video was an obvious gag or work of fiction, in which a reasonable person would understand that you were not truly endorsed, your false statement would almost certainly be protected by the First Amendment. But many false statements are not protected, typically because of their negative effects on other parties. Classic examples include defamation, perjury, and fraud. A lie about an endorsement could easily fall on either side of that line. If you are making the video in a context in which reasonable viewers would be led to believe that you truly were endorsed by that company, I could easily imagine a set of circumstances that would lead to liability: If you're releasing the video as part of a commercial endeavor, you're looking at possible claims for false advertising, unfair competition, and trademark violations (false designation, dilution, etc.). If your video is harmful to the company's reputation, you're facing a potential claim for product disparagement or trade libel. These are the corporate equivalents of the libel actions most people are more familiar with, and they generally require proving the same kinds of facts. A right of publicity/misappropriation of identity action is possible but very unlikely. Most states are very stingy about allowing businesses to bring these claims, so this one would probably be very jurisdiction-specific. Proving the case generally requires the company to show (1) that you made a commercial use of their identity, (2) that they did not authorize it, and (3) that the use caused economic harm. Beyond those, there's a whole host of business torts that I could try to squeeze this into but that are probably less likely given the hypothetical you've presented. I'd also note that your assumption about proving damages is not well-founded. Especially among the largest companies, businesses are very protective of their brands, and they invest absurd amounts of money to protect them. Pick any company with a high enough profile that someone would want to fake their endorsement, and I'd be willing to bet that their legal department could pretty quickly prepare a detailed estimate of the related damage to their brand. If a case went to trial, you'd normally expect to see an economist present an expert report calculating damages, which would begin (but not end) with any unjust enrichment you experienced because people thought you had the company's endorsement.
It means that the agreement lasts for 6 months under which confidential information (CI) provided must be kept secret for 3 years. So lets say you signed this agreement on January 1, 2018. Any CI materials provided between Jan-1 2018 to Jun-30 2018 must be kept confidential up until January 1, 2021 (3 years from the effective date). However if you received a CI material on July 1, 2018 the NDA would have expired and you would not be obligated to keep it confidential at all. These types of short-term NDA's require careful oversight because it is easy to forget that the NDA has expired and start providing CI to third parties not obligated to keep them confidential because the NDA expired. So, in short, it means that anything provided as CI during the 6-month term of the NDA must be kept confidential for 3 years. After 6 months the NDA is no longer in effect and care must be taken in exchange of CI to third parties.
Unless you were operating under a non-disclosure agreement he (and you) can use any information that he learned unless it violates IP law. It sound like what you told him is generic (if expert) views on high-level approaches to software design. That is, you didn't give him slabs of code that you own the copyright for or disclose trade secrets that you own. That sort of advice is freely usable by him. There is a reason that consultants in every field don't give away their advice before signing the contract. Now you know what it is.
As you have agreed, by contract, not to reverse engineer the product, technically it would be a "breach of contract" to do so, assuming such terms are enforceable where you live (or wherever the EULA selects as the choice of forum).
If you have a contract with another party, you can in principle sue them for damages if they breach the contract. Since you mentioned Stackoverflow, we would look at that contract, here. There is a bunch of stuff you can't do, and a bunch of stuff you can do. One thing that you will note is that their liability is highly limited (big print §9 Limitation of Liability). Also note in §4: Stack Overflow reserves the right to refuse, suspend or terminate your access to the public Network if it determines, in its sole discretion, that you have in any way violated these Public Network Terms or are otherwise ineligible to access or use the Network or Services. If your actions are determined by us to violate these Public Network Terms, Stack Overflow may, in its sole discretion, try to remediate that violation by working with you individually, but is under no obligation to do so, and if any such remediation efforts are unsuccessful (in Stack Overflow’s sole discretion), then Stack Overflow may revoke your rights to the Network. So they get to ban you, if they decided that your actions warrant. If you try to sue them, they will win because of this clause.
Games can be protected by patent. You get some protection through copyright, but only on things like artwork and the precise text of the rules; someone could copy the ideas of the game with different artwork and not violate your copyright. You would need a patent in each country you want to protect it in. In general patents are expensive and complicated. Here is some general guidance on the relevant law in the USA, and how it applies to video games. If you hire a developer you can do so with a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). This is a contract requiring them to keep your ideas secret. Here is an article about using NDAs when hiring a contractor, but its a complicated area of law and you might be better hiring a lawyer to draft one for you.