NVIDIA Looks to Gag Journalists with Multi-Year Blanket NDAs

[KillBoY_UK]

Its a shame none of my NDA's from my time in games where sent digitally but from what I can remember they are not million miles away from this one. I would love to see a AMD CPU or GPU NDA, anyone want a go a cracking open https://nda.amd.com?

 

[D.P.]

And this is how NDAs have to work,otherwise you need lawyers involved every time a technician sends an email or makes a phone call.

 

[humbug]

I don't think you understand how NDAs work. An NDA is an agreement to share confidential information. Only once the NDA is signed will they recieved information. That information has to be clearly marked as confidential. You dont get a new NDA for every communication. It always refers to a mutual agreement in general.

There is a separate legal entity called a trade secret for specific information
But that has very different uses.a journalist has no need of trade secrets, they need confidential information such as release dates. An NDA allows Nvidia to share such information to partners without it entering public domain until desired

You're confused or are deliberately trying to confuse it.

General NDA's used for reviewers are indeed specific, for example here is the GTX 2080TI it launches in one weeks time please don't publish anything before that date.

Employment NDA's are used to stop employees from leaking anything company deems sensitive, because you cannot have a specific NDA over the employers tenure and 5 years there after you have to have an NDA that blankly says anything we deem confidential retroactively after you signed falls under said NDA.

nVidia are trying to force reviewers to sign employment NDA's, LePhuronn is right about the languish and clauses in this NDA, it is an employees NDA, reviewers are not employed by nVidia.

 

[D.P.]

Its a shame none of my NDA's from my time in games where sent digitally but from what I can remember they are not million miles away from this one. I would love to see a AMD CPU or GPU NDA, anyone want a go a cracking open https://nda.amd.com?

I have lots of NDAs in place,but the thing with NDAs is they are protected by the NDA itself.

Nvidia NDA is completely unremarkable. 1 minute on Googlle would answer questions on preemptive gagging etc.

 

[KillBoY_UK]

nVidia are trying to force reviewers to sign employment NDA's, LePhuronn is right about the languish and clauses in this NDA, it is an employees NDA, reviewers are not employed by nVidia.

This has turned into a employment NDA ?

 

[Hotwired]

Can you please quote where I was wrong!

Can you show me where you were demonstrating you were right?

GN did a good video and I'm mostly ok with the video... but you didn't do any of that... I literally asked you earlier in the thread if your argument was "trust me" because that's all you offered.

 

[D.P.]

You're confused or are deliberately trying to confuse it.

General NDA's used for reviewers are indeed specific, for example here is the GTX 2080TI it launches in one weeks time please don't publish anything before that date.

Employment NDA's are used to stop employees from leaking anything company deems sensitive, because you cannot have a specific NDA over the employers tenure and 5 years there after you have to have an NDA that blankly says anything we deem confidential retroactively after you signed falls under said NDA.

nVidia are trying to force reviewers to sign employment NDA's, LePhuronn is right about the languish and clauses in this NDA, it is an employees NDA, reviewers are not employed by nVidia.

No, you are confused.

Nvidia NDA simply allows Nvidia engineers to talk freely with reviews.

Enplyeess don't have nda's they have a work contract

 

[Gregster]

I would step out of this thread and let the forum Lawyers who have never seen an NDA carry on with their depiction of what should be there. Clearly the couple I have signed in my time isn't a fair shout and my time as a Union rep isn't either. I forgot that we have so many experts on NDAs here.

 

[LePhuronn]

I don't think you understand how NDAs work. An NDA is an agreement to share confidential information. Only once the NDA is signed will they recieved information. That information has to be clearly marked as confidential.

OK, are you missing what I'm saying, or am I failing at communicating properly? I know how NDAs work and what they're for. However, I was of the belief that a non-disclosure agreement has to specifically state what the subject of non-disclosure is about. You even said this yourself when you linked the article about what can invalidate an NDA, and 2 of those points is an NDA is too broad in its scope.

The NDA as presented in this thread does not contain specificity as the what information the signatory is bound to protect. Ergo, surely then the scope of the NDA is too broad. Ergo, surely this NDA is invalid from the outset, and therefore what are Nvidia trying to do?

So based on this, and what you say about reviewers are given blanket NDAs, is it entirely within the realms of possibility that Nvidia could suppress some nasty information by just chiming in "oh, that's confidential" and invoking the terms of the NDA? THAT is the topic of conversation and why this NDA has raised a few eyebrows.

 

[LePhuronn]

I would step out of this thread and let the forum Lawyers who have never seen an NDA carry on with their depiction of what should be there. Clearly the couple I have signed in my time isn't a fair shout and my time as a Union rep isn't either. I forgot that we have so many experts on NDAs here.

No need to be facetious.

So I'll consider you a Subject Matter Expert and ask you the same question: am I incorrect in thinking that an NDA must define explicitly the scope of what is considered confidential information? Does the NDA discussed here sufficiently do this? Is "any and all" information without reference to a product/technology/event/whatever tightly defined enough to not fall foul of points 1 and 3 raised in D.P.'s linked article?

 

[D.P.]

https://www.gamersnexus.net/industry/3329-talking-to-a-lawyer-on-nvidia-nda

Another lawyer says the NDA is nothjng unusual and this is a mountain out of a mile hill

Some of the online comments got a little out of hand and were severely misguided

Overall, we think this was a mountain made of a molehill, and that little language in the document is abnormal or 'dangerous.' Note also that parties may terminate at any time (despite what some commenters will tell you), and that such an NDA doesn't somehow magically "prevent GPP2" from getting out because, remember, that wouldn't be covered under "Confidential Information." GPP was never disclosed to press by NV -- that was all third-party sources, and so that information is not covered under the agreement

Some people in this thread really have egg on their face

 

[D.P.]

OK, are you missing what I'm saying, or am I failing at communicating properly? I know how NDAs work and what they're for. However, I was of the belief that a non-disclosure agreement has to specifically state what the subject of non-disclosure is about. You even said this yourself when you linked the article about what can invalidate an NDA, and 2 of those points is an NDA is too broad in its scope.

The NDA as presented in this thread does not contain specificity as the what information the signatory is bound to protect. Ergo, surely then the scope of the NDA is too broad. Ergo, surely this NDA is invalid from the outset, and therefore what are Nvidia trying to do?

So based on this, and what you say about reviewers are given blanket NDAs, is it entirely within the realms of possibility that Nvidia could suppress some nasty information by just chiming in "oh, that's confidential" and invoking the terms of the NDA? THAT is the topic of conversation and why this NDA has raised a few eyebrows.

On my phone getting kids to bed, so will reply tomorrow, but in summary no. Nvidia can't retrospectively apply confidentiality to previous information, especially antthany in public domain or anything derived by the journalist. As the second lawyer above says, prior information cannot be made confidential after the fact

 

[D.P.]

I would hope that if anyone is going to continue to make a mountain from a molehill that they can post their legal qualifications so we know how their opinion matches 2 independent lawyers with nothing to gain.

 

[JediFragger]

I would step out of this thread and let the forum Lawyers who have never seen an NDA carry on with their depiction of what should be there.

THANK GOD, SOME SENSE IN THIS THREAD!!!

 

[jigger]

I think Nvidia should just write each review themselves. It would be a easier to just change fonts and logos.

I wouldn't sign this. 5 years is a long time to be locked Into an ambiguous agreement with a company as bad as Nvidia.

 

[jigger]

I don't think this is about gagging. I think it's just mechanism for Nvidia to try and strong arm tech sites. The ability to silence press will be very useful for Nvidia over the next 5 years.

 

[D.P.]

https://www.computerbase.de/2018-06/stellungnahme-nvidia-nda/

More on this matter. Seems like Heise has a been very biased against nvidia in the past and has some kind if personal feud with them. Other German reviewers have no such issue wit the NDA and repeat that it is pretty standard.

What Heise, in our view, forgets to mention, is the fact that this agreement is subject to several restrictions.

1. The NDA only refers to information that Nvidia explicitly informs us in advance under confidentiality. Information that has become generally known does not fall under the NDA and we may, even if we have been informed in advance by Nvidia itself, report this in advance.
2. Confidentiality ends when a product is published! So as soon as, for example, a new graphics card appears, we are allowed to write what we want.

When Heise writes "In other words: Journalists are only allowed to write what fits Nvidia in the junk. "This is wrong in our view. For with publication and thus the end of the lock-up period to a product, we may write anything, before we can not publish the information received from Nvidia simply.

Statements such as " Who signs this Nvidia NDA, must therefore bow to the will of the American manufacturer for five years " are in our view deliberately polarizing, misleading and far removed from any practice in the cooperation between media and manufacturers.

" If you release something at this time without permission, threaten the plea bargain. "Again, this statement is misleading without explanation of the context in our view. It is only about the information that Nvidia communicates under confidentiality in advance, nothing else. This one may by definition of an NDA, because that's exactly the purpose, until the release does not reveal, about anything else may be freely reported without asking for permission.

It is also not mentioned that the relationship between Nvidia and Heise is heavily biased.


And what does that mean specifically for us and you? In our estimation, the NDA published by Heise and indeed signed by us does not change our previous way of reporting Nvidia, But we will continue to be able to rate a product as we want it to, without having to expect specific negative consequences from the NDA. If Nvidia does not fit that, it has always been free to let us out. The NDA does not need it for that.

Another German site PCGH:
https://translate.google.com/transl...it-zweifelhaften-passagen-11.html#post9403217

Question: Did you read the NDA thoroughly?
Answer: Yes, and we have not seen anything that means any change in handling confidential information. Most importantly, the NDA regulates what happens when we first get confidential information from Nvidia. And nothing else is regulated.

Question: Is this NDA so different from the other NDAs we usually sign?
Answer: I do not think so, no. In details certainly, but basically NDAs from other manufacturers do not look much different. There are threats of punishment everywhere, and sometimes even several years of information exclusion.

Question: But all write that you can only publish information "in favor of Nvidia".
Answer: I am not a lawyer, but I am absolutely convinced that the phrase is "unimportant". More important are the following phrases, which you just DO NOT. Use Confidential Information for Reporting. And if you just do that, then that is to the detriment of Nvidia and of course Nvidia wants to prevent that. It's not about court reporting , as Heise puts it. That's my firm conviction.

Question: Does the NDA affect the way PCGH tests Nvidia graphics cards in the future?
Answer: No, no way. In fact, the NDA does not prevent critical coverage, even though Heise evidently disagrees.


Question: If the NDA is so "normal," why did Heise not sign it and make it public?
Answer: You have to ask Heise. As I said, I do not see that the new NDA is so much different from old ones. And the practical experience of over 20 years simply shows me that standardized NDAs under US law are NEVER being eaten as hot as they are cooked anyway. Say: You do not have to take everything literally or seriously. Heise should also know that in recent years, there were always massive tensions with Nvidia.

Question: What do you think about the action of Heise?
Answer: There are sure to be many readers who find it good that a medium is against a major player in the industry. I can understand that. What I do not understand and it's a shame: If Heise really finds the new NDA so shameful and really wants to achieve something, then the way to coordinate with other media to a concerted action would have been the much larger approach. So the whole thing has a Gschmäckle for me, because Heise turns now as a martyr and all other media are the stupid.

Also , Ryan Smith:
https://twitter.com/RyanSmithAT/status/1011347813542739969
He can't say who he has an NDA with, but can say who he doesn't and he never signs NDAs he doens;t agree with. Ergo, he had no issue with the Nvidia NDA, signed it, and thus wont talk about it.



SO it really is a mountain out of a mole hill, nothing important has changed, journalists are still free to publish negative reviews or report on things like GPP.
Moreover, it just seems Heise has some grudge against Nvidia and are tryign to be a martyr.

 

[D.P.]

I don't think this is about gagging. I think it's just mechanism for Nvidia to try and strong arm tech sites. The ability to silence press will be very useful for Nvidia over the next 5 years.

NDA do not silence press, no journalist has to sign one. Worst comes to the worst they wait to release day and review cards as normal.

 

[humbug]

You have a lot of energy for nVidia D.P, i'll give you that

 

[D.P.]

You have a lot of energy for nVidia D.P, i'll give you that

You have a lot of energy to bash nvidia