New NVIDIA Press Embargo Stirs Things up

lol yes I am just hyped up
so you guys grow a pair and go tell that long haired guy to go f himself about his two facedness

 

Looks like a more in-depth explanation similar to what HH's said.

 

I am an attorney that frequently drafts and negotiates NDAs, the T&Cs in this NDA are fairly standard. I am confused that anyone is surprised, much less outraged, about the content of this NDA.

 

no sir no dummies here
its the "pending launch" of the 1180 or what ever they are going to call the new card/s
its amd viral marketing because no way in hell are the guys from that site are that stupid.

most are getting hardons from the time it extends that's there so you cant sign it, say no,then post the inside info.

you have to cover your butt so many ways these days....sheet malpractice insurance is the reason why we have a lot of care stations and not more 1 or 2 doctors in a normal office.

I always come off sounding like I live green but lets say way back a few decades you found out about how the other side wrote your reviews for you,to me that's a never trust company.now today that should make you Susquehanna hat company crasy.
I don't blame the reviewers at all they do what they have to
cetp' one guy I would like to bash on his head with a baseball bat.
back when the 5970's came out...I had 4 or 5 on launch
so this amd beer swelling big boy is telling me that I am lying about quad cutting out amd numerous issues with cf tri and quad.
because low and behold his review (I had cards at release day} has numbers for multi gpu no issues all good,and bro's the drivers really sucked for months after launch at the time on amd.
anyways I got the guy with screenshots like only I know how to do he deleted all related posts the fat drunk bastard
heaven forbid ati/amd read the truth about the hardware
since I knew about their bs with ref. ati/amd card reviews I got all gpp on their ass started post with the same reviews numbers from thirfreakingteen sites.
about 8 or 9 guys got back to me and explained their side so I don't blame them.
to be honest when nv was #2 they tried the same thing and lol it did not go that well was not spilled mud dirty water flinging like gpp was but almost for the day.

 

Everybody is over-reacting.... It's a standard NDA that will ultimately have no impact on the site or forum.

 

There is only one thing wrong with this NDA.
Imagine situation that everyone was on board with this NDA prior 3.5GB 970 thing.
In that situation, nVidia could send NDA information about it to all those NDA signing media, and they would be bound to keep silent.
Even if one breached NDA, they would still be bound to ignore it. NDA states that only information disclosed by authorized parties or if nVidia provides information as "for disclosure" may be reacted on.

If forum member came to 3.5GB+0.5GB situation via experimentation, and site owner under NDA would know about it from nVidia, he would be allowed to write only about:
"Forum member thinks GTX 970 has some weird memory configuration..." And giving confirmation would be forbidden. There is 5 years limit. Basically, if nVidia played it right, they could send any and all anti-consumer information to NDA signers, and prevent large medial coverage of each issue.

If nVidia let's every NDA signer know that they implemented HW level backdoor into Tegra x2, 5 years they are safe from large medial coverage.
(This is overblown, but imagine being that media.)

@Hilbert Hagedoorn : How would you feel if you had to keep 5 years some secret which is actually harmful to nVidia's clients?

 

Assumption is fictional situation where nVidia would let you know about it under NDA and therefore forbid you from releasing it, talking about it as it would not be beneficial to them.
I am not questioning your journalism. That's why I asked you only personal question about your view on situation where NDA would attempt to force you to keep secret which you would clearly know is harmful to clients.
(Not asking if you would release it and ignore NDA or not. Just personal state of mind in such situation.)

 

I can't really see any major fuss here, all that the document says is that the person who signs it is agreeing that information provided to them by Nvidia is not to be made public until a time of their choosing (or 5 years).

I don't see any restrictions about posting information that has entered the public domain through other sources. This NDA clearly states that the recipient of the NDA is exempt from restrictions regarding reporting information that has entered the public domain by any other source since Hilbert (in this case) only has to adhere to his agreement and has no knowledge of whether information that has entered the public domain has done so by a breach of an NDA by a third party, therefore allowing him to report any and all such information.

In reality, Nvidia (or any other company) has a 'preferred' list of people that receive samples and information before they are publicly released and Hilbert or anyone else on that list can be removed without warning or reason at any time whether an NDA is broken or not.
We can discuss the wording, but 'Play our game and get the freebies, don't play and you get nothing' is just the way business works.

Maybe Hilbert should disclose all NDA agreements that he is bound by so that we are never unknowingly misled here.

 

Any other source which has been authorized for disclosure. It still forbids you from talking about anything you learn about via NDA source. Even if it has been made public either speculatively or via breach of NDA.

Simle example: You are under NDA and nVidia tells you release date of next GPU. There are speculations floating around which hit exact date, and someone breaches NDA and confirms it. But you are still forbidden from talking about it.

There are realy only 2 ways for you to be freed from NDA. 1st is obtaining nVidia's permission and other is court order.

It is kind of better not to receive any NDA information from nVidia, you do not need. Because then you are free to speculate, oppinionize and talk about information you know came out w/o nVidia's authorization.

 

Stop acting like this is some new scheme invented by nVidia. AMD does this, Intel does it, and just about every single hardware manufacturer and video game developer does this as well. And have been doing so for decades.

This manufactured outrage is the exact same crap the media is going in politics. During OBama's presidency, children were separated from parents in an identical fashion as you're seeing today. Nothing is different except people trying to push a lie that its not.

 

(Backs away quickly and quietly from this thread as it somehow goes political). lol

 

This NDA looks to be a reaction to Kyle putting the Kybosh on GPP.
https://hardforum.com/threads/nvidi...-blanket-ndas.1963113/page-12#post-1043702195

 

Who asked you?
You think what you want, I'll keep my own opinion thank you.

 

I think so too. Its a general NDA about any confidential info Nvidia may share with those agreeing to the terms. Nothing to do with product reviews or how they are conducted, but any info, tech or otherwise that Nv says is confidential.

 

who this guy?
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/09/09/amd_roy_taylor_nano_press/3

he talks about how sucky amd is about what to say. what a bitch he thinks he should have gotten a card?
his unprofessionalism hit a new low with me

 

What's the point of paying lawyers to draft multiple NDA's when they're generally all the same boilerplate contracts?

 

It is called "entitlement". Yes, he is spoiled brat.
But wording there is clear. Not that it is much different than other NDAs. I personally signed few hundred pages of NDA. Many years ago, I had one as thick as 40 pages.
But in the end, what is important is scope defining parts. In those I have currently active, scope clause is quite short, pretty unclear. But upon dissection to logical statements, it covers everything including client's company name.

In comparison to this, nVidia's scope is pretty clear. And conditions at which NDA for given information is void is clear too. In this case, fact that nVidia sends person under NDA information about something problematic and states that it falls under NDA prevents recipient from releasing article.

 

I don't see them going straight to a reviewer/journalist and telling them they're doing something problematic, you're just asking for information to be leaked. Also it doesn't prevent the NDA recipient from releasing information that comes from a 3rd party or to release their own researched information that didn't come straight from Nvidia.

 

It does prevent recipient from releasing anything that he is aware is under his NDA. Moment nVidia lets you know anything like: "This is truth and it falls under NDA", it no longer matters what source you had.

As long as you do not receive call, mail from nVidia letting you know about it and stating that it falls under NDA, you can do whatever you want because you are not breaching your own NDA.

If subject A breaches his NDA, subject B who did not receive this information via his NDA can write whatever he wants about it even knowing that it falls under someone's NDA. But if he receives call from nV's representative in middle of writing article, information in that call may prevent him from releasing it.

If I was in middle of writing some serious article about something very problematic and nVidia was ringing my phone. I just write one more sentence: "nVidia rep is ringing my phone" and press "release".
After that call, I would either finish article as call was about something else or state: "Newly received information falling under NDA forbids me from continuing write-up of this article."
(Basically confirming that sources were pretty much true. But this would definitely alienate nV even w/o breaching agreement.)