Gotta plead ignorance here because I've never been in this situation - but how would this be different from e.g. all the Docuvault clients in Denver when Iron Mountain purchased them? I don't know what happened but it seems like an identical situation to me. This same scenario (for physical records) plays out all the time - don't the acquiring companies take custody of the information assets? If I'm completely off-base I welcome the correction but I just don't see this as being any different. 

<snip>
What if existing clients DON'T WANT to go to Autonomy as a service provider
and/or don't want their assets transferred there?

NOW, they've negotiated a deal for someone to take over the service and the
PR makes it said as if they are also granting custody of the information
assets of clients as part of the deal?  Do they actually have the right to
do that?  

They were 'custodians' of this data an d being paid to provide a service,
but they shouldn't be able to sell the rights to continued custodianship as
if it were an asset they owned.  It should be up to the owners of the data
who they essentially broke their contracts with to determine where they want
their data to go, and they should be allowed to negotiate new contracts with
SLAs they determine meet their needs.
</snip>

Jesse Wilkins, CRM
Director, Systems of Engagement
AIIM International
[log in to unmask]
http://www.aiim.org
(303) 574-0749 direct
Twitter: @jessewilkins

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]