New NVIDIA Press Embargo Stirs Things Up
Click here to post a comment for New NVIDIA Press Embargo Stirs Things Up on our message forum
RealNC
What's the point of NDAs if you can ignore them?
cowie
basicly the need to lie is what they discourage
what you think they don't know what thier hardware can do? how hot overclocks?
more bs to run with go for it
Mufflore
Thats more than none, its a 1 year outright ban and no doubt they suffer future issues.
I suspect penalties will be far stronger after this.
Take a look at the 5 year clause they built in to it, they want blood from dissenters!
If your reason for signing the NDA is to receive early samples and info, cutting those off makes you effectively the same as someone who hasnt signed the NDA.
Except you are still bound to conform to the NDA if you ever want to get back on a good footing.
It enforces restricted/controlled journalism.
Fediuld
I wonder how this could have affected the GTX970 scandal, does under this NDA means that we shouldn't have known about the less ROP than advertised and the 3.5GB VRAM only operating at full speed? Because given when the card came out, media outlets like Guru3d shouldn't reported out that until September 2019!!!!!!!
fantaskarsef
I can actually see and understand @RealNC 's concerns. But with this new NDA I think it's a little blown up (like Hilbert said in his article), and secondly, it's a matter of interpretation. Unless Hilbert's not allowed to say -anything- bad about NV (which usually is their behaviour and their pricing), it won't change much.
But if an investigative site signs any such NDAs, the question is, what would have happend when Nvidia really did something that's not right? A site that cites sources that really put out intel about the skeletons inside Nvidia's closet? We'd probably never learn (or care) 😀
RealNC
This is the main issue with this kind of NDA. It's important that the huge news sites out there do not sign it. Guru3D reported on the 970 issue because it can simply source these other sites. But if these other sites are not allowed to report on it, then neither can Guru3D.
IMO, even though G3D signed it, it should support sites that refuse to sign instead of going all like "what's the big deal yall." No. It IS a big deal, because YOU depend on THEM not having signed it. They have at least some power to go against NVidia. G3D and other such sites can't afford to.
It is actually self-evident right now why not signing the NDA is really important. G3D reported on it, because Heise reported on it. If Heise had signed and thus couldn't report on it, then neither could G3D. The only reason G3D was able to run the article is because Heise didn't sign the NDA. So the whole "what's wrong with Heise, it's fine, just sign it" line of reasoning is kind of an oxymoron.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Administrator
Good example as at that time, similar generic NDAs also were in place. And no, as you have been able to learn, all media posted about it, including this website.
warlord
Simple meaning is further restriction and leakage control, less or none at all hints about incoming product, performance, sw or hw preview or tease, if you already have legitimate info and physical review samples in your hands from Nvidia themselves before launch, right?
GDILord
Thank you.
D3M1G0D
I think what Heise took issue with is the vague nature of the NDA (no firm timeline, and some confidential info can never be revealed) as well as the requirement to only use such info for the sole benefit of Nvidia. I think everything here is familiar with NDAs, but the vague and far-reaching nature of this particular document is certainly troubling.
Heise's decision to reveal the document will have some serious implications going forward, not just for them but for the entire tech industry. I think people will now question things even more, especially articles which seem overly favorable to Nvidia ("what did you expect? They signed the NDA"). Of course more transparency is a good thing, and I'm glad Heise decided to take their stance.
GDILord
Nvidia already had something like this a while back, except that it was from "prominent forum members."
[youtube=H0L3OTZ13Os]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0L3OTZ13Os&t=13m30s
NOTE: I am not trying to say anything about these forums with that remark!!!
Me too.
schmidtbag
I legitimately don't see the problem here. Sure, getting sneak previews of what's going on in Nvidia's labs is always fun and interesting, but how often does it actually matter? Looking through Nvidia's perspective, I wouldn't want people knowing incomplete projects I'm working on, either, because I don't want to give false hopes and I don't want unnecessary rumors started that either add or detract hype. Why do you think AMD is always so incredibly vague about everything up until they know a product can be released? The more info they give away, the more people will speculate. If it weren't for AMD's open-source drivers, our knowledge about the next-gen parts would be practically non-existent, up until CES anyway (which gets me to wonder if that's one of the reasons Nvidia doesn't make open-source drivers...). Speculation turns to myths, and myths often lead to disappointment or confusion. With Nvidia being so much bigger and more interesting as a company, it's much more difficult for them to keep rumors at bay, so, the best way they can go about this is to make an NDA for journalists.
As long as reviewers like Hilbert can retain full honesty in their reviews, I think people are making a bigger fuss about this than they need to.
Silva
The only Nvidia news in the last 2 years are AI and self driving cars anyway...Pascal was announced March 2014!
Your argument is invalid. Yes, for the average user a 1080Ti is an awesome GPU. But if you plug a 4K high refresh rate screen, a 1080Ti will not be enough. If you want 3 4k displays, forget it. There's always the person who want more, or just like to have the bragging rights.
alanm
Main purpose is prevention of premature leaks about new products being reviewed. Ignore that, no more future samples of new products. The big question, is what if you publish speculative (or real) info about the product AFTER the review is out concerning something discovered later that may be a design weakness or flaw in the product, ie, as with the gtx970.
edit: on rethink, I dont think Nvidia would even attempt to suppress analysis or speculation of a products design flaws or shortcomings (ie, 970). It would backfire bigtime if scandalous info of this type were to be suppressed in any way.
Noisiv
:shock: 😱 😱
Someone has noticed this after all <--> paragraph 3. b) and c)
I merely glanced through this NDA, and I am disappoint that none of you armchair lawyers has spotted 2 more issues:
"solely for the benefit of Nvidia" (paragraph 3) is vague to a point of being useless, and as such completely redundant/nonobligatory
Why? Because I could write a 100% negative article about particular Nvidia's product and reasonably argue that IT IS SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT of Nvidia, because it helps them to identify the shortcomings and build a better product in the future.
Two sections dealing with 2 separate issue (and so different paragraphs really) are appearing under the same paragraph number (3) WTH
alanm
Techpowerup also signed and are pretty much in line with Hilberts views. They are also thinking Heise over-reacted and that its not much of a big practical issue. TBH, I'm also beginning to think its much ado about nothing. Mainly because IF Nvidia tried to suppress or control review sites views, it would raise too much of a big stink that would make them look bad in the end. [H] though doesnt like it and will not sign.
schmidtbag
I'm no lawyer, but from what I've noticed over the years, being vague is deliberate, because it allows for adjustment of interpretation where they find it convenient. The phrasing does actually work to their advantage.
Regarding your 2nd point, Nvidia could argue what you're doing is slander, because the product is incomplete. Furthermore, the information is supposed to be confidential, meaning you don't have enough evidence to report on. If the review were entirely negative, it would be extremely easy to poke holes in the "identifying shortcomings to build a better product" argument.
But yeah... having two section 3s is a pretty dumb mistake on their end...
Texter
It's funny how more-of-the-same feels like selling their soul to the devil to some people...
Noisiv
@schmidtbag
I take back what I wrote in regard to "solely for the benefit of Nvidia".
I did a bit of Googling and that particular wording seems to be a standard legal phrase the exact meaning of which I am not quite sure.
Something along the lines that the NDA and Confindential Information are not intended to benefit third parties. You can't use it to sue Nvidia or claim a deduction on your taxes. (again I am out of my depth here)
It's got nothing to do with having to be biased or pro-nvidia in your reviews 😉
schmidtbag
I agree - it isn't there so you can sue Nvidia, it's there so Nvidia can sue you. The point of the NDA is to tell you explicitly how Nvidia can take legal action against you if you don't comply with it.
EDIT: Legal action doesn't necessarily mean they can sue you, but it is a breach of a contract, so they can use that to deny you service (like providing review samples).
