Google translation of the post mentioned above from PCGH:
Okay, here's our opinion. It is not checked by the house lawyer because we do not have one. But now I have more than 20 years of experience with NDAs and a whole closet full of things. That must also count something.
In this context, I also refer to the two statements by the esteemed colleague Igor Wallossek of Tom's Hardware Germany ( Tomshw.de , 3D Center ) and also to the statement by Computerbase .
Question: Did PCGH sign the named NDA?
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.
Nvidia knows this opinion too and I was promised to deal with it and, if necessary, to publish a statement from Nvidia's site. But that does not change the fact that we are not beautiful.
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: Has PCGH ever signed NDAs?
Answer: Of course, many times already. If an NDA has serious disadvantages, we will not sign it. Especially not if the NDA does not adequately protect the signatories from those who do not sign. And if there are no advantages through the NDA, but only disadvantages. I'm not going to tell which companies or what the occasion was, because I think that's a very private and personal decision. In the end, it is important that we do not sign anything that is detrimental to the reader. And in the case of information z. For example, for new generations of GPUs, I consider it essential that we get first-hand information for the readers.
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.
Another final word: I am sorry that I answer now, but I discovered the Heise story only yesterday evening and I first discussed this with other parties this morning.