NVIDIA Looks to Gag Journalists with Multi-Year Blanket NDAs

[D.P.]

I was watching gamers nexus video which focused on the rumour mills.

>

This. See, an actual legal experts agrees with me.who would have thought, not as if I don't regular read NDAs with our company lawyer!

the bottom line is:
Reviewers can say what negative things they want in a review,and can report any information they want that wasn't given to them by Nvidia under NDA. They can talk about GPP, they can talk about 3.5GB 970s, they can talk about rumours of new products when they weren't provided real information, they can write scathing reviews

 

[D.P.]

If they existed before then why the uproar? It's pretty obvious this was shoehorned in as a result of nvidia's pathetic little gpp project getting **** on before they could fully roll it out.

What uproar is there beyond the usual hyperbole a nd propaganda click baits?
Like TechPowerUp explained, a standard NDA they are used to signing weekly from numerous companies.

 

[D.P.]

If you read what I post I won't have to quote myself to reply to your questions.

Feel free to note me talking about selling journalistic integrity by signing such an NDA. I believe that's the most important part.



I was interested so I checked that

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/heise.de
https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/techpowerup.com

Heise is actually massive compared to tpu.

No, You are not making any sense.

GPP was leaked by AMD to HardOCP, no journalist had any NDA covering information on the GPP so all were free to write about it. Nothing changes with the new NDA.

If Nvidia had sent all reviewers confidential information on GPP and told them it was covered under NDA,then they couldn't publish it u until given the green light from Nvidia. That is exactly how an NDA is supposed to work.

 

[maonayze]

If Nvidia had sent all reviewers confidential information on GPP and told them it was covered under NDA,then they couldn't publish it u until given the green light from Nvidia. That is exactly how an NDA is supposed to work.

Thanks DP, you just proved my point. If this NDA had come out and been signed by all the Tech "Journalists" before the announcement of GPP, then they could not have reported on it regardless of where they got the information. We would be reading about GPP in 2023 and wondering why all the AMD cards were no longer a part of established Gaming brands. Hence this is EXACTLY why this NDA has been worded this way and set for 5 years.

So Nvidia launch the 1170/80/Ti series, they are regarded as great cards in all the reviews. Nvidia knows each and every flaw in their hardware. These flaws will be put under confidential information and will not be allowed to be talked about for 5 years. Now tell me how review sites that have signed this NDA can put out a balanced review.

 

[bru]

You have actually clicked the large button which says spoiler which you quoted?

The part which is the actual transcribed part from the image given of the NDA.

Holy **** it's raining people quoting me to give me a piece of their mind when they didn't read what they quoted.

But don't let that stop you trying to package away people you don't like as "bashing Nvidia".

Yes, TPU spends a great deal of words on saying it doesn't stop negative reviews.

And it doesn't. Claiming otherwise is wrong and its easy for them or anyone else to see.

They spend zero words about this; a section I have transcribed because the original is a picture of the text:

Spoiler

Use Restrictions. Recipient shall use Confidential information soley for the benefit of NVIDIA and shall not (a) post news stories based on Confidential Information; (b) post Confidential Information regarding NVIDIA invitations and special press events; (c) post Confidential Information on public or private forums or user discussion websites; (d) post videos "predicting" or "hypothesizing" about future announcements using Confidential Information as a basis for a story; (e) post to social media channels and Confidential Information or "conjecture" based on Confidential Information; (f) threaten to expose Confidential Information, unless paid in cash or ad dollars; (g) sell or broker Confidential Information or products before, during or after a launch; (h) disclose confidential login information for a system to allow others to gain access to Confidential Information.

Any confidential information that is not blessed by Nvidia is now toxic to anyone signing the NDA. These terms did not exist before because the GPP exposure would have been impossible under these terms.

Any leaked confidential information is forbidden to be published, any confidential information from a third party is forbidden to be reported on, absolutely no claiming or suggesting anything based on knowledge of same.

Spectacular level of head in sand if you think this is normal for a journalist to agree to only report on officially released information. They have to sign for financial reasons of course and it is in exchange for some of their independance.

No, the signing of NDAs at your non-journalistic work is not the same thing and does not compromise you in the same way.

Apologies hotwired, I got confused with one of the other posts on here, I thought your spoiler tags contained the images of the NDA and thought that the part in green was your transcription.
Bottom line yes I did not actually read what you had put in the spoiler tag, so apologies and my bad.

that's what I get for reading something and then later replying to it at nearly 3 in the morning

 

[D.P.]

Thanks DP, you just proved my point. If this NDA had come out and been signed by all the Tech "Journalists" before the announcement of GPP, then they could not have reported on it regardless of where they got the information.

No, only If nvidia gave them information on the GPP. That didn't hapepn, so the journalists could have talked about GPP freely with this NDA.

It is really quite simple, let me spell it out for you:

• Nvidia provides you with confidential information protected by an NDA, you can't disclose it publicly until Nvidia says so.
• You find out information yourself, or someone else tells you, then you are free to publish

That is exactly how all NDAs work.

 

[KillBoY_UK]

So Nvidia launch the 1170/80/Ti series, they are regarded as great cards in all the reviews. Nvidia knows each and every flaw in their hardware. These flaws will be put under confidential information and will not be allowed to be talked about for 5 years. Now tell me how review sites that have signed this NDA can put out a balanced review.

No if a reviewer finds said flaw them self's in a review they can report that, watch the GN video with a real lawyer

 

[hyperseven]

No if a reviewer finds said flaw them self's in a review they can report that, watch the GN video with a real lawyer

but all those internet 'lawyers' on Reddit told me otherwise Who do I believe...

 

[Marine-RX179]

No, only If nvidia gave them information on the GPP. That didn't hapepn, so the journalists could have talked about GPP freely with this NDA.

It is really quite simple, let me spell it out for you:

• Nvidia provides you with confidential information protected by an NDA, you can't disclose it publicly until Nvidia says so.
• You find out information yourself, or someone else tells you, then you are free to publish

That is exactly how all NDAs work.

But doesn't that also mean that Nvidia can tell those who signed the NDA exactly the things that they decide to keep from the public knowledge, and for whatever reason if later the same information was then leaked by 3rd party, those that are under NDA would not be able to comment or participate in discussion or publish any article relating to the subject? So wouldn't that mean Nvidia could just use the NDA to their advantage as preemptive measures?

 

[BubbySoup]

No, only If nvidia gave them information on the GPP. That didn't hapepn, so the journalists could have talked about GPP freely with this NDA.

It is really quite simple, let me spell it out for you:

• Nvidia provides you with confidential information protected by an NDA, you can't disclose it publicly until Nvidia says so.
• You find out information yourself, or someone else tells you, then you are free to publish

That is exactly how all NDAs work.

Those 2 points sum it up perfectly - I don't know why everyone is trying to make it out to be something else.

 

[D.P.]

Those 2 points sum it up perfectly - I don't know why everyone is trying to make it out to be something else.

I know why, it is fashionable to bash nvidia for no reason what so ever. Nvidia do enough things wrong that people should really stick the actual issues rather than making things up. But then brand allegiance is strangely powerful for some people.

 

[D.P.]

But doesn't that also mean that Nvidia can tell those who signed the NDA exactly the things that they decide to keep from the public knowledge, and for whatever reason if later the same information was then leaked by 3rd party, those that are under NDA would not be able to comment or participate in discussion or publish any article relating to the subject? So wouldn't that mean Nvidia could just use the NDA to their advantage as preemptive measures?

Nvidia would then have to tell every single journalist every single secret they don't want out in the public, and then the moment someone who isn't under NDA finds out through some leak or personal research (e.g, the 970 3.5GB RAM was discovered by analysis) then it ends up in the public domain anyway. Nvidia would have had to tell reviewers the 970 had 3.5GB of full speed ram but requested reviewers to lie that all 4.0GB was the same speed. At that point the NDA largely becomes void due to other legal concerns. Furthermore, once some is published in the public domain, it is likely the NDA becomes void anyway. For starters, the journalists can always refer to content on the 3rd parties media, e.g. "Mr Leaker says XYZ on their website, but we have no comments to make on this subject". If Mr Leaker told a journalist in private about XYZ and the journalists had a specific NDA about that information, they would have to keep quiet. IF Mr Leaker published XYZ on their website, then its public domain and referenceable but the journalist would be restricted in exp[anding any information about the subject covered by the NDA.

 

[KillBoY_UK]

The fact this came out the same day a photo of a new Ti class prototype card was leaked and many have reported on this kinda show most of the hyperbole is just that before a even proper lawyers commented on it.

 

[humbug]

No, only If nvidia gave them information on the GPP. That didn't hapepn, so the journalists could have talked about GPP freely with this NDA.

It is really quite simple, let me spell it out for you:

• Nvidia provides you with confidential information protected by an NDA, you can't disclose it publicly until Nvidia says so.
• You find out information yourself, or someone else tells you, then you are free to publish

That is exactly how all NDAs work.

I think a lot of people are missing a crucial point in this, Including GN's lawyer, the NDA has a clause in it where anything they deem 'confidential information' then falls under NDA, GN's lawyer and D.P are arguing "Well if a hypothetical GPP 2 information is made public by a board partner then you can talk about it because its already public knowledge", this is just stating the obvious and it ignores the intention of the clause in the NDA, normally an NDA is not so nebulously far reaching as to include any will or whim nVidia decide after the NDA is written, "Any information we deem confidential" i have had 3 NDA's in recent times, i'm currently under one for Cloud Imperium Games, they don't have a clause that leaves the door open for the issuer to enforce anything they like at his or her whim, that effectively makes it a gag order for whoever wants to control informations around illegal activity, NDA's have been used to try to cover up illegal activity in the pasty, a lot of it works, the trouble is the individual first needs to understand the activity is illegal and then have the inclination and finances to challenge it legally.

 

[jigger]

If they existed before then why the uproar? It's pretty obvious this was shoehorned in as a result of nvidia's pathetic little gpp project getting **** on before they could fully roll it out.

Or Nvidia would have sued the crap out of every tech site known.

 

[Beren]

I dont quite get why this is such a big deal. Nvidia want you to agree that they can tell the press stuff in advance and that it wont be used until they say it is ok.
They do not appear to be making any statement about the slant the newa has to take.
There is nothing to stop a journalist developing a third party source and actually investigating.
It only covers what they are directly provided by offical Nvidia sources.
If they actually told the press something really heinous to try and cover it up they would find a a way to leak it through to someone else. It just wouldnt stay secret.
I am no Nvidia fan but this is being blown a long way out of propotion.

 

[hyperseven]

Or Nvidia would have sued the crap out of every tech site known.

As is any companies right if you break a legally binding document

What point are you trying to make?

Are you just trying to perpetuate a non topic?

 

[humbug]

I dont quite get why this is such a big deal.


It only covers what they are directly provided by offical Nvidia sources.

It doesn't, it covers anything in the future nVidia deem confidential information, the reason board partners and HardOCP was able to talk about GPP was because GPP was not specifically covered by any existing NDA, a lawyer may not have passed an NDA for GPP because of the potentially illegal nature of it.

Under this new NDA nVidia have injected a clause that effectively bypasses those checks, they are able to enforce it under anything they deem "confidential information" post the NDA written.

 

[jigger]

As is any companies right if you break a legally binding document

What point are you trying to make?

Are you just trying to perpetuate a non topic?

Well it's pretty simple to understand the point I made...

What are you upset about now?

 

[LambChop]

No, only If nvidia gave them information on the GPP. That didn't hapepn, so the journalists could have talked about GPP freely with this NDA.

It is really quite simple, let me spell it out for you:

• Nvidia provides you with confidential information protected by an NDA, you can't disclose it publicly until Nvidia says so.
• You find out information yourself, or someone else tells you, then you are free to publish

That is exactly how all NDAs work.

That doesnt fit with the anti nvidia narritive though.