Interesting Legal input on Filter Study

[63Avanti]

For those of you who have been skeptics about the usefulness of my little study of Beta Ratios of branded oil/hydraulic filters (aka Filter Element Efficiency Study), it appears that it may have hit a nerve. I have been informed that the Purolator/PureOne lawyers have to approve my use of their data in published material. I have verified with their technical staff that I was interpreting the data correctly.

So, the study is going to be taken down, again.

I am continuing to get in data from companies, and creating my study. No one can stop that. But, if anyone else will ever see the results is at this time problematic. To bad, new data received over the weekend and the number crunching would have raised eyebrows.

 

[Gary Allan]

Show or quote the copyright referenced dialog. I can't see that this can be valid if they didn't give out the information with a disclaimer attached ...and then it's kinda a situation where the cat's out of the bag.

 

[glenncof]

Getting assistance to verify interpetation seems like a benefit.

 

[Gary Allan]

Take the National Enquire approach to your study.

"Unidentified sources allege that Purolator's Pure One has a beta ratio of blablablabla". Officials from Purolator refused to confirm or deny the validity of this claim without first consulting legal council (this doesn't say who was supposed to consult them) ...."

Or ..the one that I've used a few times in some discussions..

"Now ...I'd NEVER SAY THIS ...but my cousin in Lancaster County would call you a BLANK-BLANK". Naturally, I don't have a cousin in Lancaster County.

 

[Pablo]

It's simply amazing how close the filter manufacturers watch/worry/etc about these filter "studies". Almost every one gets threatened....I like Gary's idea. Use words like approximately, or about or something not quoting them. As long as you don't use their graphics, exact words, etc...

PU (code for Puro....)
AM
FM
etc

 

[Lonnie]

If you have hit a nerve they may choose to tie you up without a valid precedent to defend their position. What they consider a small expense to further their business plan could be a major expense to you. In the future do as suggested. State very carefully what you propose as backup for a report on performance of a given product. In our fleet service we receive data that we sign an NDA for and they are very serious about this stuff. There are may posts on this forum that I would like to chime in on but can't. The problem is that it's people like you that really make a difference in educating those of us that are interested in all things vehicle maintenance. Also make sure you do not sell you information without careful though being applied to the process. And I would like to give you three words of encouragement about what you are doing, "full speed ahead".

 

[RF Overlord]

See, this is one of the (many) things wrong with the American legal system. Companies that lie and cheat and steal are entitled to the same protections as honest ones. Mind you, I'm not lumping Purolator in with the former, but it seems to me that if you're simply quoting data they've already published elsewhere, what's the problem? What are they trying to hide by leaning on you?

Now if you were making things up and attributing false data to to them, that would be different.

 

[63Avanti]

I wish to be clear here. I know of no publically available source of the data I received from the Purolator Tech Support. They did a great job and provided me more than I have received from anyone else. I am grateful. I was not aware of the implied NDA. I am a signatory of many NDAs, and I am very touchy about them. The ethical issue trumps the legal issue, at least with me. After I am closer to completion, I will assess what reasonable and ethical alternatives I have. Right now, I was only attempting to explain why the data disappeared off my web site.

Quote:

---

See, this is one of the (many) things wrong with the American legal system. Companies that lie and cheat and steal are entitled to the same protections as honest ones. Mind you, I'm not lumping Purolator in with the former, but it seems to me that if you're simply quoting data they've already published elsewhere, what's the problem? What are they trying to hide by leaning on you?

Now if you were making things up and attributing false data to to them, that would be different.

---

 

[benjamming]

There's no such thing as an implied NDA that I'm aware of. That's why you have to sign them otherwise it's only implied & worthless. If they don't want folks to know the data, they shouldn't tell it to someone calling their tech support #. Duh.

 

[Gary Allan]

I tend to agree. You don't distribute information freely and then conditionally limit its use. I don't know about this in terms of "publishing" though. Unless there was some copyright attached to that email ...even then you can pluck stuff from the document as long as you acknowledge the source (I think).

Even if they "expressed" it ..I think it's a moot point after they give the information to you.

Sounds like "Vapor-legalese" to me.

 

[sciphi]

Cite it as best you can, ie date of the call/email, phone #/website/address, who it was you contacted, etc. and keep plugging!

If they didn't tell you explicitly that you could not distribute it, then IMO you are free to distribute for non-commercial purposes. Looking at your site, that looks pretty darn non-commercial.

 

[63Avanti]

99% of the time, I have no problems, and as a published author many times over, no books, just technical journals, conferences and speciality mags. I consider myself very good at providing full references. I have removed my permission to publish when the printer wanted to remove the references (over a page long) to save space. That said, I also have never had a note from anyone saying that I needed to check with their lawyers before using something they previously sent to me without condition.

As I never charge for anything I "publish", I am not exactly in a cash position to engage in an ex-post-facto legal issue.

 

[wgtoys]

It sounds like Purolator is trying to put the genie back in the bottle after the fact. I pity the tech support person who is now probably getting all kinds of grief for giving you information.

Personally I would like to see all companies publish comprehensive technical data on their products instead of the marketing ---- they put out. I would love to see the actual results of the sequence of tests required to get "SM" motor oil certification, but other than Schaeffer I have never seen any of that data published at all.

 

[Steve S]

The filter info is advertising and is available to the public? Would someone posting for example Amsoil 4 ball wear test numbers are better that M1 oil be the same kind of thing? If the numbers are true how can the info be "bad?"