Editorial Revised NVIDIA Reviewers NDA Raises Eyebrows: Our Thoughts

[close]

@btarunr: Imagine we are in September 2014 when GTX 970 was launched. You find out from a leaker that Nvidia knows about the 3.5GB RAM issue and you plan to publish an article. But Nvidia preempts your move by officially disclosing this info under NDA (perhaps attached to a sob story of how they're working to fix it to make it look less "covering tracks" and more "working for you").

Are you still allowed to publish this?

Because if not I can see why people are worried. You could become Nvidia's secret keeper for 5 years. And by the time the NDA expires people don't really care much about old news, do they? Not the same impact, definitely not on sales.

 

[ajc9988]

Seriously, you are correct if we can assume all data is gathered impartially and without bias.

Unfortunately, you know as well as I do that nothing could be further from the truth in the online journalism world.

Take it from me, this place is better than most at reporting the true facts of matters. And me backing up Dave is seriously not my style.

To be clear, I am not attacking TPU nor its journalists, nor its coverage or bias or lack thereof.

My point was more to discuss the fears related to the document and certain coverage, such as the GPP and Nvidia basically gobbling up partner's brand IP and trademarks and that coverage like that can now be pre-empted by giving confidential information to all outlets at the outset. After that, hearing rumors on the effect of the agreement is pre-empted in the NDA. This is not just about reviews.

But I did want to make clear that this is not making statements related to the journalists here or their integrity and is solely related to potential uses of the agreement.

 

[cadaveca]

@btarunr: Imagine we are in September 2014 when GTX 970 was launched. You find out from a leaker that Nvidia knows about the 3.5GB RAM issue and you plan to publish an article. But Nvidia preempts your move by officially disclosing this info under NDA (perhaps attached to a sob story of how they're working to fix it to make it look less "covering tracks" and more "working for you").

Are you still allowed to publish this?

Because if not I can see why people are worried. You could become Nvidia's secret keeper for 5 years. And by the time the NDA expires people don't really care much about old news, do they? Not the same impact, definitely not on sales.

NVidia could not prevent such info from coming out by NDA, because most NDA expire when the product launches.

But I did want to make clear that this is not making statements related to the journalists here or their integrity and is solely related to potential uses of the agreement.

That was clear to me from that start, but perhaps you need to look at this situation with a wider angle.

 

[Captain_Tom]

Not a single western company has ever tried to influence the outcome of my reviews in any way (including NVIDIA). Some Asia companies have tried (a little bit), but of course without success.

Why would you want to screw with reviewer results, and then get burnt by actual customers who encounter product flaws. Nowadays everybody can post their experience online. Results of hardware reviews can easily be reproduced, or are immediately noticed when comparing with other reviewers.

You are massively overestimating 2 things about Novice Consumers: 1) That they will do as much research as Enthusiasts, 2) That people will even notice they didn't get what they paid for.

People often spend money just to feel good after reading one review on a big website. Almost no one does in-depth research or fact checks their purchase after they have made it.

As long as Nvidia can get glowing day 1 reviews, they can be content that 90% of people will not notice anything that emerges after. I don't even have the time to give endless examples of this - but I will mention the fact that Nvidia STILL gets praise for "good drivers" even after it has been quantified by Microsoft crash logs that Nvidia cards crash more often than AMD on average. Oh, and after how many drivers from Nvidia brick cards or break youtube every year?


But let's see what happens here. The article states TPU will stay honest, and generally speaking TPU has indeed been pretty trustworthy in their reviews over the years. I hope that remains true.

But drop this utter BS about Nvidia not having a motive to force stuff down reviewers throats. That's hilariously naive, and in fact makes me immediately question TPU's ability to even notice when they are being maliciously used for anti-consumer practices.

 

[R-T-B]

Are you still allowed to publish this?

To quote a legal friend of mine:

"Yes, as long as you can prove you got the info another way besides from the NDA'd group"

 

[TheMailMan78]

I think I love this comment.

We should start a "Society for the Appreciation of Snowflakes" with the goal of ending the use of "snowflake" as a derogatory term. You can be president.



The only reason I can think is if you have confidence you can spam common review sites with "fake reviews" but even this is unlikely to work 100%.



Be TPU.

People say you bias towards nvidia. People say you biased towards AMD/ATI. Be bias towards nobody.

Cancel out.

PS: I become 4chan.

Kill me.

That Chan speak was pretty good man. If you were not so Anti-Trump I would think you were a KEK and not a normie lol.

 

[R-T-B]

My point was more to discuss the fears related to the document and certain coverage, such as the GPP and Nvidia basically gobbling up partner's brand IP and trademarks and that coverage like that can now be pre-empted by giving confidential information to all outlets at the outset. After that, hearing rumors on the effect of the agreement is pre-empted in the NDA.

That's not really true. It just means we know what to look for if they "pre-empt it" and then we have to find another source for the same info.

Seriously, that benefits nothing.

PS: I need to stop using the "we" here. I am speaking theoretically and I'm sure it pisses some people off. I don't work here anymore, to be clear.

That Chan speak was pretty good man. If you were not so Anti-Trump I would think you were a KEK and not a normie lol.

Do not confuse me for anything normal. Frog god hates normal. I love frog god. I have to or he'll make drown in tadpole.

 

[Casecutter]

I have a scenario... let's say a company says this card has 4Gb of memory, but while testing it doesn't access the last .5 Gb at the same speed as the first meaning the VRAM allocation and VRAM bandwidth is incorrectly stated by the release documentation provided.

A) Release my findings in the Review after the embargo.
B) Submit to the company my finding and wait till they respond.
C) Submit to the company the findings and just release without my finding after the embargo is lifted.
D) Submit to the company my finding and say you have up and until the embargo is lifted to respond.

I would say the biggest issue was the 5 year term and the amount of time that is provided to research or get counsel as to my possible risk. What are the terms if I later say I no longer want the be subjugated or participate in this what does it actual take in signatures, disclosures and time to not be under the stipulations of the NDA.

 

[ajc9988]

That's not really true. It just means we know what to look for if they "pre-empt it" and then we have to find another source for the same info.

Seriously, that benefits nothing.

PS: I need to stop using the "we" here. I am speaking theoretically and I'm sure it pisses some people off. I don't work here anymore, to be clear.

You do understand what the clause saying "rightfully received" can mean in a court of law, correct? Such as someone else violating their NDA making the receipt wrongful potentially. That is in the mislabeled second 3, subsection b.

 

[R-T-B]

You do understand what the clause saying "rightfully received" can mean in a court of law, correct?

I'll confess that's actually not a phrase I'm familiar with.

And again, I'll fully admit though I do have some legal knowledge, I am an internet lawyer (AKA not a real one, so beware).

Anyone else want to chime in on that point? I don't see a way they could prevent the publication of something you learned entirely seperate from NDA sources, even if they clued you into the issue, but I could be wrong.

But drop this utter BS about Nvidia not having a motive to force stuff down reviewers throats.

I don't think anyone questions whether they have motive to do so. Every company has motive to do so. The question is whether it's even practical for them to really try and I'd argue it isn't practical for them to try to alter reviews directly.

 

[sneekypeet]

Loads of reports coming in from this thread. Some posts have been "adjusted" and we ask that anyone who wants to attack, flame, enrage, poke fun of, or harass other members, move along and do not post. Anything that fits the above descriptions that follow this public warning will be removed and potentially points given depending on severity of the offenses.

 

[close]

NVidia could not prevent such info from coming out by NDA, because most NDA expire when the product launches.

The NDA doesn't necessarily tie confidential info to a product launch. Confidential info is defined as "any and all technical and nontechnical info disclosed or made available to you by Nvidia". And it can be related to anything, including the terms of the agreement. As such the NDA expires 5 years after you receive the info from Nvidia, whatever it may be.

The obligation of confidentiality removes liability only if the info was "rightfully received without restriction of NDA". So I would say you will not be able to publish ANYTHING that comes from unofficial sources if you were also told by Nvidia under NDA. Unless they become "public domain" first, and someone else broke the news.

Also you are no longer allowed to post any editorials/opinions regarding Nvidia since anything you say would be based at least partly on confidential information received from them. So an article like "Why 2020 will be a hard year for Nvidia" or "What to expect from the GTX 2080" will be impossible without basing at least one statement on details mentioned under NDA by Nvidia. And I'm sure they have ways of sneaking everything you're told under this NDA.

Moreover, after signing this NDA you will not even be allowed to take part in discussions such as this one on the forum unless everything you say is unrelated to info you received from Nvidia.

So do you think you will be able to post an official answer to my original question after maybe consulting TPU's legal counsel?

 

[cadaveca]

So do you think you will be able to post an official answer to my original question after maybe consulting TPU's legal counsel?

No need for that... I didn't sign any NDA from NVidia. You can't hold me to something I personally didn't sign. you might want to consult a lawyer on your own to understand how it is possible.

 

[mat9v]

I don't care much about this "for the benefit of Nvidia" stuff, BUT since it is a blanket NDA stating that any Confidential Information provided to Recipient are under it for aperiod of 5 years or indefinitely is classed as trade secrets, it MAY be used as a gag for any journalist that try to write about any information it aquired, be it positive or negative for Nvidia.
Let's say for example that Nvidia provides a journalist with information that some announced product will have 8 GB of memory but due to construction limitations it will have 6GB of fast memory and 2GB of slower memory - in that case said journalist will be unable to mention such a nugget of information regardless of the time of product release - it is a secret and if Nvidia does not specifically release such an information to the public, reviewer is unable to mention it in any way.
Sure, such a situation is not very likely, but blanket NDA without any expiration date is hard to explain. Just my 2 cents.

 

[close]

No need for that... I didn't sign any NDA from NVidia. You can't hold me to something I personally didn't sign. you might want to consult a lawyer on your own to understand how it is possible.

I understand that but my question didn't point at you as a person but at TPU. The point is "any and all information" received from Nvidia by someone who signed the NDA can no longer leave that person's head without prior authorization from Nvidia for 5 years. Not legally at least.

As journalists that should scare you. Yet TPU's official position as indicated by this article is that "all's good". Even though you may be forced to sit on information that could be of public interest and not be able to report it in any way.

I find it fair to be told if this is indeed the official position of TPU. While I don't really doubt the integrity of people writing for TPU, after signing an NDA all bets are off and legality will probably precede integrity. Want it or not your hands are tied after signing. And this has to have a bearing on my views related to future Nvidia related articles.

 

[mat9v]

No need for that... I didn't sign any NDA from NVidia. You can't hold me to something I personally didn't sign. you might want to consult a lawyer on your own to understand how it is possible.

If you are a staff member of TPU and your superior (chief editor, owner of TPU) signed NDA you are forced by terms of such NDA just as he is. If that did not work like that every worker in any company would have to personally sign every NDA that is presented to his/her company.

 

[cadaveca]

As journalists that should scare you. Yet TPU's official position as indicated by this article is that "all's good". Even though you may be forced to sit on information that could be of public interest and not be able to report it in any way.

I am not aware of any reviewer at ANY site that actually holds journalistic credentials. So please do not give us that label. you might want to question anyone that suggests they are a "tech journalist". I do know such people, good friends with one local, in fact. It's be pretty low for me to discount the time he invested in that career.

If you are a staff member of TPU and your superior (chief editor, owner of TPU) signed NDA you are forced by terms of such NDA just as he is. If that did not work like that every worker in any company would have to personally sign every NDA that is presented to his/her company.

I am NOT employed by TPU.

 

[ajc9988]

I don't care much about this "for the benefit of Nvidia" stuff, BUT since it is a blanket NDA stating that any Confidential Information provided to Recipient are under it for aperiod of 5 years or indefinitely is classed as trade secrets, it MAY be used as a gag for any journalist that try to write about any information it aquired, be it positive or negative for Nvidia.
Let's say for example that Nvidia provides a journalist with information that some announced product will have 8 GB of memory but due to construction limitations it will have 6GB of fast memory and 2GB of slower memory - in that case said journalist will be unable to mention such a nugget of information regardless of the time of product release - it is a secret and if Nvidia does not specifically release such an information to the public, reviewer is unable to mention it in any way.
Sure, such a situation is not very likely, but blanket NDA without any expiration date is hard to explain. Just my 2 cents.

The reason I do not like that example is because testing showed that the last half GB of mem on the 970 was slow. The story was broken through forensics. That is not forbidden under this agreement, but if disclosed to the journalists, they have to wait for independent discovery/verification, which means the sales at release are already done. Nvidia already got their money. We can look at the results of the class actions lawsuit to see whether Nvidia was actually harmed or benefited (that is rhetorical, they made more money than loss on the 970).

The concern is gagging the CEO's statement that no new cards will be coming for a long time at a press engagement without express permission from Nvidia to report such with permission being in writing, or the GPP, which was discovered due to a violation of another person's NDA, which actually was leaked to AMD which then farmed out the story, which AMD in that situation may have partially sterilized it to allow for reporting, but getting other sources to speak off the record about confidential information, with Nvidia having already given confidential information to the journalist, to fill out the story on the GPP to get it to the public, that would be more difficult when complying with this agreement, potentially. That is why I used the GPP as an example.

 

[jabbadap]

Imagine we are in September 2014 when GTX 970 was launched. You find out from a leaker that Nvidia knows about the 3.5GB RAM issue and you plan to publish an article. But Nvidia preempts your move by officially disclosing this info under NDA (perhaps attached to a sob story of how they're working to fix it to make it look less "covering tracks" and more "working for you").

Are you still allowed to publish this?

Because if not I can see why people are worried. You could become Nvidia's secret keeper for 5 years. And by the time the NDA expires people don't really care much about old news, do they? Not the same impact, definitely not on sales.

They really can't hide that kind of flaw. If tests shows that there's slower part of memory, it's easy to prove with showing test data that the flaw exists and you don't have to use nvidia given "Confidential information" as source. It's even actually said on that nda in chapter 3. Recipient shall not be liable for disclosure of Confidential Information that... c) is or was independently developed by employees of recipients.

 

[cadaveca]

They really can't hide that kind of flaw. If tests shows that there's slower part of memory, it's easy to prove with showing test data that the flaw exists and you don't have to use nvidia given "Confidential information" as source. It's even actually said on that nda in chapter 3. Recipient shall not be liable for disclosure of Confidential Information that... c) is or was independently developed by employees of recipients.

Thanks! You've hit the nail on the head here.

If there is something that might affect the end user, it is testable, and obvious, and as such, as soon as the card is released, is not subject to NDA clauses. I can run my own tests, since I didn't sign that NDA, and post my results, with no recourse for NVidia against TPU, by the NDA itself. I love how people will comment about stuff , but clearly didn't read what they are commenting on. Clearly, you read it.

 

[mat9v]

I am not aware of any reviewer at ANY site that actually holds journalistic credentials. So please do not give us that label. you might want to question anyone that suggests they are a "tech journalist". I do know such people, good friends with one local, in fact. It's be pretty low for me to discount the time he invested in that career.


I am NOT employed by TPU.

I'm sorry, I just read "Staff member" - my bad

 

[cadaveca]

I'm sorry, I just read "Staff member" - my bad

Yeah, that can give the wrong impression for sure, but that is something new under my name, but for many years was not present. I am a self-employed individual. If you do business stuff, how that all works should be pretty obvious.

Anyway, as posted above, even if I was, it wouldn't matter. All that matters is that I do my own thing, independent from what the NDA signatory does, without info provided by said party.

 

[close]

I am not aware of any reviewer at ANY site that actually holds journalistic credentials. So please do not give us that label. you might want to question anyone that suggests they are a "tech journalist". I do know such people, good friends with one local, in fact. It's be pretty low for me to discount the time he invested in that career.

I used the "popular" definition as "a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast". You may not have the credentials officially but it makes little difference to the topic at hand. You [or whoever that may be at TPU] are reporting on tech news and your readers may rely on the accuracy of your reporting. It's reasonable to expect that TPU would flag a conflict of interest such as not being able to report accurately due to signing that NDA.

So then take my question as "to whom it may concern". I initially addressed it to @btarunr since his title is "Editor".

Guess my point is since I can expect TPU reviewers to sign the NDA, I should also expect any and all Nvidia related articles to be censored in one way or another in order to eliminate any possible info declared confidential because it does not benefit Nvidia.

 

[Casecutter]

NVidia could not prevent such info from coming out by NDA, because most NDA expire when the product launches.

I guess that what this is about are sites and their reviews subjugate by this 5 year umbrella NDA and then a NDA for the product and specifications. Or are you beholden by this "confidential information must be used solely for the benefit of NVIDIA". I suppose if a reviewer finds a discrepancy during a test that is not covered by confidential information they are good to report without any apprehension of running afoul of this 5 year subjugation.

 

[cadaveca]

Guess my point is since I can expect TPU reviewers to sign the NDA, I should also expect any and all Nvidia related articles to be censored in one way or another in order to eliminate any possible info declared confidential because it does not benefit Nvidia.

The NDA only hold the signatory individual as responsible. Just read it... and the only person who would sign an NDA is the person getting the hardware/information. The rest of our organization is not affected as long as there is no discussion between us about it. And that rarely happens. I don't post my own NDA-covered reviews usually until just moments before it should be published, just so that there is no problem with such things here. It's very easy to overcome situations like this.

I guess that what this is about are sites and their reviews subjugate by this 5 year umbrella NDA and then a NDA for the product and specifications. Or are you beholden by this "confidential information must be used solely for the benefit of NVIDIA". I suppose if a reviewer finds a discrepancy during a test that is not covered by confidential information they are good to report without any apprehension of running afoul of this 5 year subjugation.

Even if it is covered by NDA, there are ways around that. NDAs of this sort in this industry really do nothing but provide necessary protections for the stock market. They have a very specific purpose. I'm also not in the US, so not subject to US law directly. Of course, I mean myself, not TPU.

I'll give you an example:

So, I post the launch day of the next VGA. I guess this date, based on the past (ie, my birthday, which is when they usually launch cards), and I get this date right. Maybe this date is covered by NDA< but since it was not disclosed to me directly, should I decide to post it on the front page, they can't be held responsible for what I do, because IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT in the NDA.

This ensures that the worries you have mentioned here are not a real worry... it just means that whoever signed the NDA will not be the person to explore such subjects. Fortunately, there are many people that contribute here.