NDAs have two purposes: to protect the company that issues them, and to guarantee that they can act against the consultant/staff member should they breach that agreement.

NDAs are a must when a company does not want any sensitive information regarding their intellectual property to be disseminated beyond their property/staff. This is especially important when working with breakthrough technologies that the competition has no knowledge of or has failed to realize. Hence, this is crucial to give the owning company a lead in the market; it gives them dibs over who gets the patent from the USPTO first. 

This extends to existing products as well. IP, regardless of whether it’s new or mature, needs to be kept under wraps by those entrusted by the employer. Trade secrets, such as the formula for Coca-Cola discussed in the lecture, manufacturing methods, clinical data, and design specs, would be prominent examples of such info. If the consultant/staff member fails to do so, they breached the promise they made by signing the NDA. They have every right to respond accordingly for exposing info to those that would take advantage of it, for better or worse, for the company and patients.

Do I think NDAs can be used too aggressively? Sure, depends on how the company intends to codify their penalties and how they go about applying them, especially for early discussions for new projects or new hires; if the company coerces an NDA for the sake of intimidating a client, then that becomes predatory. In most cases, it is one of the most essential tools for any employer seeking to protect their competitive and innovative edge in the market.

Nick, you brought up an important point about NDAs serving a dual purpose, not just protecting the company's IP, but also creating a clear basis for action if the agreement is breached. I agree that in fields driven by innovation, especially when patented technology or proprietary methods give companies a real competitive advantage, NDAs are necessary. Without them, it would be almost impossible for organizations to share early stage or bring in outside collaborators without risking leaks. That being said, I also think NDAs can feel a bit overused, especially in the early stages of conversations where very little sensitive information is shared. Sometimes it seems like companies use them as a default instead of a targeted tool, which can make interactions feel more formal or even intimidating than they need to be. I like your point that it becomes problematic when the NDA is used more as leverage than protection, that is where it crosses into being excessive. 

NDAs are indeed a necessary tool to protect a company or person's IP, however they are used aggressively. Maybe this isn't a bad thing, but in the medical device field, one mess-up or leak in information can cause competitive disadvantages in the future. I believe most of the aggressive nature of NDAs stem from uncertainty. In many cases, NDAs are designed to control the spread of information instead of protecting the intellectual property. In general, blanketing everything in a project, for example, is a lot easier than listing specific items in a NDA because of the risk of missing something. The aggressiveness of NDAs is not done in a ill-manner. NDAs shouldn't blanket an entire project, and are most effective when targeting specific IP.

When is come the NDA itself, it is a very important tool that can protect process and trade secrets that help to make their business successful. By doing so, it makes it so that those processes are protected and former employees can't take those process and make an even better product or even steal clients from that employer as well. I would say that the NDA is very important, but the main problem with it is they make it kind of a one size fits all model. The problem with this is that all companies will take them to make it so that protect the important things. A company to be more effective need to protect the important secrets and processes to ensure that they aren't leaked or taken by someone else after they leave a company. This allows for the company to not lose it important process and secrets. 

NDAs in the medical device and biotech space are often used more aggressively than truly necessary, largely because companies operate in an environment where intellectual property, early design concepts, competitive positioning, and regulatory strategies can be extremely valuable and easily undermined if shared too freely. While this caution is understandable—especially for startups whose entire valuation may hinge on a single idea—the result is that NDAs are sometimes pushed even when discussions are preliminary and no meaningful proprietary information is exchanged, functioning more as a psychological barrier or a way to control the conversation rather than a genuine legal safeguard. At the same time, completely relaxing their use isn’t realistic given how quickly competitors can replicate ideas and how early leaks can compromise patentability, partnerships, or market timing, so the issue isn’t that NDAs exist but that they are often deployed reflexively rather than thoughtfully. In practice, the healthiest approach is proportionality: NDAs should be used when specific, identifiable information needs protection, not as a default requirement for any conversation, and companies should be transparent about what they are protecting and why so the agreement becomes a tool of trust rather than an unnecessary hurdle.

NDAs have been used heavily in many many industries and I believe in most they have their purpose. Companies should have a right to protect the secrets that allow their company to be unique. There are however some instances in which an industry might benefit from sharing certain secrets. While it may not be a good strategy in a competitive market, it may help boost innovation across several companies similar to how opensource programs often allow for improvements in technology. Of course this opens the door for plaguerism, however if used by entirely good willed parties, I could see a lack of NDAs benefitting to advancement of current medical technology.

Some good points were brought up about NDAs being used for intimidation and providing standard consequences if the agreement to maintain company secrets is breached and this often leads to very uncomfortable or awkward conversations. I think this causes potentially simple conversations to turn out way more formal and overdrawn than necessary.