[jpdoctor]

> “If you agree to these terms, we have a gentlemen’s agreement that you’ll stop talking to other companies?” ... We agreed.

It turns out that's an intelligence test: Anybody worth having a gentlemen's agreement with would be gentlemenly enough to put it down in writing.

The correct answer is: Put it in writing.

Edit: NDA's are another intelligence test btw. All of the entanglements without any of the enforceability.

[jonny_eh]

So you're intelligent if you don't demand an NDA?

[jpdoctor]

Not quite. It's more like: You're not intelligent if you think an NDA is worth a damn (as the article shows.)

[cturner]

When good people sign a NDA it counts for something.

When you're dealing with lying buggers though, it represents an option to sue. Insurance is similar.

[S4M]

Yeah, except when you are not in position to enforce the NDA which was the case of the OP.

[jacques_chester]

Many lawyers will take cases on contingency.

ie, they'll work for a percentage of any payout.

[nknight]

Yes, but that doesn't always help.

If your opponent is rich, they can hire an army of lawyers, and you'll generally need a correspondingly huge law firm prepared to invest their own time and money in countering that. The kind of law firms we're talking about are both few in number, and generally fully-engaged by well-paying clients -- clients like your rich opponent. The incentive to take on a case like this is pretty limited.