What are you talking about? You obviously were unable to comprehend my post, and sequence of posts, then have the nerve to call me a liar?

Let me try again to say exactly what I've already posted in simple, responsive terms that perhaps you can understand. After all, I'm a bit bored at the moment - though anticipate a very fun day with friends - and this will have some minimal entertainment value.

Since you start out with reference to the ISM; where did I say or even imply that PTSC is constrained by DoD Directive 5220.20-M? Read my posts again....

What I did say is that at the four large companies I worked for, all in the aerospace/defense industry, Company Private information was required to be handled in the near exact same way as Classified information. Locked up/controlled at all times, available only to those with express permission (in some form) and then only when they had a reasonable "need to know". COMPANY PRIVATE typically had to appear at top and bottom of a cover sheet in specific-sized all-cap print, plus in smaller font on every page of the document (detailed business plans, financial/budget info, staffing/HR info, certain contractual info, trade secrets, IR&D projects/status, etc., etc.). Guess what? Those are the EXACT SAME requirements as for handling Classified info!

Likewise, if confronted with a question from someone where the correct answer is designated Company Private (e.g., what's the IR&D budget allocation this year?) the proper reaction is to either deny knowledge or say that you are not at liberty to tell (the latter being the more tricky approach, because sometimes giving that response inadvertantly answers a question, e.g., "is that program classified?" or "are we bidding on a contract with XXX", or "are we close to a settlement with XXX" where the existence of a dispute is not publicly known). Just like the requirements for handling Classified info.

Now, the sequence of events:

John Deere was added to LL's list which he is/was kind enough to mainatin and share. There had been no PR about it, and I didn't recall seeing any posts where it demonstrated the source of this info - in fact I still haven't. Banosser appeared to have prompted the addition.

Shortly thereafter, in a conversation with Cliff, I mentioned that someone on Agora had advised that Deere was an unannounced Licensee. Cliff said nope. I advised LL. I got a somewhat - perceived - snotty response. His list was not changed.

A while latter, in one of our classic LL/SGE "war of the words", this issue of Deere came up again. It still wasn't cut/pasted into a post on Agora. I contacted LL via pm, and in a pm from LL to me, LL advised that Banosser's input had nothing to do with it because HE, LL, had read it in a PACER (but didn't post about it other than adding it to his list). Thus it was revealed that the info was obtained in a court document/PACER, and not via some nefarious means.

In a conversation with Cliff that followed, I advised Cliff that the Deere license had been revealed in a PACER. Upon hearing that, he confirmed, because the info had obviously already been made public via PACER, and shared on Agora.

And as I pointed out in my post, this is one of the big differences between the required handling of Government Classified info and Company Private info. Classified info typically can never be revealed by the recipient, and if you did you were subject to not only being fired on the spot, but also a probable long stay in a Federal Penn, depending in large part upon the perceived damage done. If the recipient of Company Private info reveals it inappropriatedly, primarily dependent on the perceived damage done you could get a warning, a strong warning with a threat of temination or be fired, and be potentially liable for assessed monetary damage. But the big difference is that once Company Private info becomes widely known/enters the public domain, you are free to talk about it, though confining the conversation to only that which has been made public.

This is how the business world works in my experience.

And apparently this is exactly how Cliff/PTSC operates. Note Cliff's reply as seen in a post by CedarStreet at 5:38pm yesterday:

"We can confirm that the ITC has reported in its Investigative History as to Kyocera that the complaint has been withdrawn and the proceeding terminated. The conditions precipitating these events were accompanied by strict confidentiality provisions allowing us only to acknowledge what the ITC has already made public. Unfortunately we are unable to say or do more in regards to this matter. The company continues to expect an initial determination from the court for the remaining respondents by September 6th, 2013."

I've altered the bolding to make my point. Confidentiality Agreements=NDA=treated as a form of Company Private (with tight restructions re: "need to know").

To close the loop on the sequense of events, I elected not to advise LL of the confirmation. He had not removed Deere from his list - it was still there. The confirmation wouldn't change anything from where it stood. And it was obvious to me that no matter how polite I was in advising LL of the confirmation, it would be met with an obnoxious "nannar-nannar"/"I told you so", so there was clearly no point.

Having entertained my self with the above "bloviating", I hope you have a better comprehension. Neither Cliff nor I acted inappropriately. Nobody lied in the way you and others suggest - at least not unless you think it's fine and dandy to openly share classified info to the detriment of the nation and in conflict with agreements you've signed which restrain or, in the private sector (e.g., PTSC) share info in direct conflict with an NDA/"strict confidentiality agreement" - thus potentially nixing a deal and future deals in full view of the courts. Not to mention subjecting yourself to the possibility/probability of being fired on the spot for violating your NDA with your employer (with great credentials in your future job search - "reason for termination?").

In your defense industry experience, you very likely signed an NDA (Company Private/Proprietary info) at time of hire/first day on the job as part of new hire orientation. If you were to be exposed to Classified info, you had to petition for a clearance via the DIS, were advised of the penalties for failure, and were advised as to how to deal with a situation where you are confronted by anyone desiring info that you were obligated to protect. And you had to have received an annual refresher instruction, including "latest threats". These things are required - including the advice/training. Did they instruct you to deny/lie with "I don't know what your asking about", "I have no knowledge of any such thing", or the potentially hazardous "I'm not at liberty to discuss" - which, though truthful, can easily reveal the answer? Or did they instruct you to spew the truth in detail? I doubt the latter, as pertains to both Classified info AND internal Company Private/Proprietary info.

Now off to enjoy the weekend!

SGE