GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
23:11 Nov 11, 2007 |
Spanish to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law: Contract(s) / non-disclosure | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: Andy Watkinson Spain Local time: 21:30 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
Summary of answers provided | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
3 +1 | random/scattered pieces of information |
| ||
3 | individual items/components of information |
|
Discussion entries: 3 | |
---|---|
random/scattered pieces of information Explanation: sugg |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
individual items/components of information Explanation: Hi, I agree it's pretty shoddy, to put it mildly. Basically what it's saying is that the exceptions to the non-disclosure obligation don't apply a to piece of information merely because one of its components has been defined earlier. The specific combination of "items" must be expressly excluded. i.e. a piece of information whose components are A, B and C is not excluded merely because in a previous clause A or B or C were individually mentioned. "individuales" refers back to the antecedent "items"; "........ exclusivamente porque (algunos de sus items) individuales de información estén dentro de una o más excepciones..." I don't really like my suggestion but that's the meaning. Andy |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.