NVIDIA Looks to Gag Journalists with Multi-Year Blanket NDAs

This will surprise you all. The person attacking people's mothers and calling name is none other than......

upload_2018-6-27_8-57-44.png
 
Yeah, i think im pulling my patron support and see myself out. This AMD nutthugging and "hurr im a victim please donate to my forums" has gone beyond normal levels. This place has become what a tech site would be if run by Alex Jones and Nvidia was a company that wasn't run by a member of the Aryan Nation.

Sad to witness the decline of a once great and respected tech reviewer.
 
People are really not seeing what Nvidia really is:
https://semiaccurate.com/2015/01/20/two-new-twists-nvidia-patent-trolling-kepler-license-scheme/
https://semiaccurate.com/2014/09/04/nvidia-sues-samsung-qualcomm-like-semiaccurate-said/

Nvidia has litigated before even tried to run a business model around it. If you think you can afford to be as unimpressed as Steve from Gamers Nexus.

Why does Nvidia even need all of this nonsense?
50Cal said:
Yeah, i think im pulling my patron support and see myself out. This AMD nutthugging and "hurr im a victim please donate to my forums" has gone beyond normal levels. This place has become what a tech site would be if run by Alex Jones and Nvidia was a company that wasn't run by a member of the Aryan Nation.

Sad to witness the decline of a once great and respected tech reviewer.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can write a nice letter of support to Nvidia and praise them for their new and improved technologies "GPP""NDA"since there was nothing else to really talk about unless you count some of the hardware release under the same name but not exactly working as the previous hardware iteration.
By the way if you need to spend your money elsewhere a good school would be the first thing you should look for.
 
Last edited:
50Cal said:
Yeah, i think im pulling my patron support and see myself out. This AMD nutthugging and "hurr im a victim please donate to my forums" has gone beyond normal levels. This place has become what a tech site would be if run by Alex Jones and Nvidia was a company that wasn't run by a member of the Aryan Nation.

Sad to witness the decline of a once great and respected tech reviewer.
Click to expand...
You should probably see yourself out. As for the Aryan Nation comment, the oldest employee of HardOCP and one of my most trusted friends is black, and the person that admins our forums is Phillipino. Good try with you race baiting. I have not run an Aryan Nation personally, but I would have to think I am doing it wrong.

If that is the best you have to prop up your argument, well, I guess you lose.
 
Just think about this for a minute. People are defending a company for putting out blanket unending NDAs and the people that sign that NDA that report on the products from that company. This is how they want their unbiased information served up to them.
 
chithanh said:
I think it is worse than that. What if NVidia declares the inner working of the review driver to be a trade secret?
Now the reviewer reverse engineers the driver and discovers that there is some benchmark cheating function. But due to trade secret status, not even the 5 year rule applies. They are barred from talking about it indefinitely.
Click to expand...

Yeah that is true but that is also information that would be found out pretty quick and once Brent found out that there was a difference between the review drivers and the general public drivers, that would then be public knowledge wouldn't it?

Meeho said:
But any relevant additional information provided by Nvidia in Kyle's followup with them, or, worse yet, prior information that would prove essential to the new finding of GPP, would be subject to the NDA. Lets say that one has info that takes a whole new meaning after something like GPP leaks, they wouldn't be able to do a service to us because they would have an all encompasing long term gag order placed upon them.
Click to expand...

Only if they deem it confidential. If Kyle breaks another GPP type story by his own investigative journalism and Nvidia wanted to do damage control or debunk GPP, it wouldn't make sense for them to give Kyle a statement then label it confidential. I don't think that would work in this situation.

N4CR said:
You're missing the point.
Confidential Information that is not public e.g. reviews under embargo, GPUs sent for review prior to launch, tech specs, info etc, are bound by terms of that NDA to be 'for the benefit of Nvidia'.
It doesn't say reviews, it doesn't say anything, it is a non-product aka 'you must use CI for benefit of Nvidia' NDA. So yes, it covers reviews that are under embargo until they are public information.
Click to expand...

Reviews before release date have always been restricted. Reviews after release aren't confidential because the cards are available to the public and while nobody does a GPU like Brent, anybody will be able to run some comparison benchmarks to find out how the card stacks up. So as I understand it, anything you can find out on your own, as in GPU test results, are not subject to the NDA.

Kyle had sources leak CI to him, that's how this game often works. He is not NDA bound to that info.

I'm not saying you are an nvidia shill, just that you are misunderstanding the legal implications of this document. Kyles' IP lawyer (which is exactly the right legal field for this) has a very different take on it to Steves' attorney. My experience with NDAs and legal processes also lead me to understand this document in a similar way to what Kyles' lawyer feels.
Compare that to someone whose client is bound by the very NDA we are discussing and gave a horrifically vague answer to the 'benefit' clause.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I totally get where you're getting this from. "For the benefit of" does have very shady sound to it but after reading the whole NDA a couple times I just don't think it's as bad as people are thinking. There are hundreds of youtube reviewers out there and only a handful get sampled from Nvidia. Forcing HardOCP, Anand, Linus and Tom's to give fake reviews would blow up in their faces almost instantly as the other hundred non-sampled and non-NDA bound youtubers bought their cards retail and exposed the bullshit.

I do believe Nvidia is trying to control the information sites are putting out about them but not really anymore than any other company. I understand a company wanting to control what sites can do with the confidential and sensitive information if gives out.

I totally believe Nvidia would try to control all review results if they could get away with it. I also believe any company would. However I just don't think that would ever be possible in this day and age of social media. It was fall apart almost instantly and if a mope like me knows that I'm sure the execs at Nvidia know it too.
 
50Cal said:
you missed my point. Basically Alex Jones would call anyone that isn't right of an Aryan Nation member would be the anti-christ ultra hardcore liberal and then spew all sorts of conspiracy theories about said company. That wasn't race baiting, that was your lack of understand/reading comprehension or more of the "oh im the victim here"
Click to expand...
Funny how things get misunderstood when you start rolling out insults and talking about "nutt juice."

And I thought you were leaving?
 
MacLeod said:
Only if they deem it confidential. If Kyle breaks another GPP type story by his own investigative journalism and Nvidia wanted to do damage control or debunk GPP, it wouldn't make sense for them to give Kyle a statement then label it confidential. I don't think that would work in this situation.
Click to expand...
If he had any prior information provided by them that would be relevant to the whole debacle, he still couldn't use it to inform the public.


I do believe Nvidia is trying to control the information sites are putting out about them but not really anymore than any other company.
Click to expand...
Well, at least one industry veteran thinks it is quite more and there hasn't been any claim by anyone that would disprove that, only to what degree this different NDA is an issue or not.
 
defaultluser said:
The "Confidential Information" explicitly says it has to be given to you by Nvidia "Made available to the recipient sometimes from the disclosing party." If you are not given the information, then you have no restrictions on doing the research and reporting it.
Click to expand...
So if NVIDIA were to pull me aside one day, and talk to me about GPP confidentially, that means I could never discuss it. Right? And I have had MANY conversations with NVIDIA that were about confidential information.

defaultluser said:
I see nothing \ here that prevents reporting of GPP, since you did not sign that.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Why would you sign anything if you were a journalist.
 
MacLeod said:
Only if they deem it confidential. If Kyle breaks another GPP type story by his own investigative journalism and Nvidia wanted to do damage control or debunk GPP, it wouldn't make sense for them to give Kyle a statement then label it confidential. I don't think that would work in this situation.

Reviews before release date have always been restricted. Reviews after release aren't confidential because.../snip.
So as I understand it, anything you can find out on your own, as in GPU test results, are not subject to the NDA.

I do believe Nvidia is trying to control the information sites are putting out about them but not really anymore than any other company. I understand a company wanting to control what sites can do with the confidential and sensitive information if gives out.

I totally believe Nvidia would try to control all review results if they could get away with it.
Click to expand...

This is less about reviews and more about 'other' information Nvidia labels CI to anyone who has signed the NDA.

You recognize that Kyle worked hard and dug deep for the GPP story, which he did.
Well, if we apply this new NDA to those same people Kyle worked for the GPP story, what might have changed?

The signee would be legally barred from discussing GPP (Nvidia would obviously label this as CI) and he may have heard a whole different story, even from people who he has built a relationship with over the decades - who among them, is going to want to risk financial liability of their own, or their entities?

Kyle would have heard a myriad of answers that all boiled down to 'does not exist' and 'cannot comment on that'.

A lot of people are only taking into consideration how the NDA impacts what the person can post or review, and not also linking that to their conversations with other journalists/reviewers, behind the scenes.

Now, stuff leaks either way sure, but with enough pressure from Nvidia, a signee may not be willing to take any risk in breaking the NDA, fearful for their livelihood.

Had this NDA been in place, we may have never known anything about the behind the scenes on-goings of GPP, only that 'suddenly' video card manufacturers were all rebranding AMD cards away from their gaming brands.

We still don't even know the entire story behind GPP, a policy Nvidia backpedaled away from very hesitantly, and without remorse.
The simply reason is because Nvidia is absolutely working on GPP v2, and having this NDA covering a %% of reviewers/journalists, would allow them to easily maintain a disinformation campaign for any goal they wanted.
 
SomeoneElse said:
That's just insane....they are trying to keep their hype train from derailing when their GPUs start missing the performance marks they claim.
This is some grimy stuff. Who puts a 10 year NDS out.....I think basically its saying that We don't want anyone who spoke out badly of someone to ever get the chance to speak out again.....this is what kills journalistic integrity.
Make you wonder how much of this type of stuff happens behind closed doors with the New Media outlets....looks like those smaller outfits get snuffed out along with suppressing the truth.
Click to expand...


Who puts out 10+ year NDA's? The UN and governments. I have signed a few over the years,with both. Still,this NDA has been looked over by a real lawyer via GamersNexus with no real ill will found on NVIDIA's part by the lawyer.
 
MacLeod said:
OK, I was pissed off initially about this too but the more I read it, the more I don't think it's that bad.



No they're not. It actually doesn't say anything about reviews. It says any information disclosed by Nvidia to a reviewer is deemed confidential. Nvidia sending [H] a 1180 FE to review isn't confidential information but specific architecture design secrets sent in an email could be. Any information Brent puts together himself from a review would be fair game and not bound by the NDA because it was information obtained by HardOCP and not based on information disclosed by Nvidia. Information in reviews can't be confidential because any Tom Dick or Harry could find out that information just by buying one. I'm definitely no lawyer but I don't see where the NDA stipulates all reviews have to be good.

The "for the benefit of" line, to me sounds like it's only related to information disclosed to a site by Nvidia and that you can't use it against them. Say Nvidia fucked up the design of the 1180 and it runs too hot and slower than the 1080 so they're remaking them (I know that's a ridiculous example but just go with it). Nvidia emails Kyle and tells him about it but says it's confidential. Kyle can't run out and post a front page article about 1180's slower than 1080's. Basically, anything Nvidia tells you in confidence you can't use to smear Nvidia.

As for GPP, Kyle didn't break that story based off confidential information disclosed to him by Nvidia. He broke it by good old fashioned journalism and doing some digging on his own so he still could've reported it because the NDA only states "confidential information disclosed by Nvidia" is bound by the NDA.

I'm on record here for nearly a decade as a devout AMD fanboy and [H] family member so I'm not playing favorites here and while I will never be confused for a lawyer I can't find any language in this NDA where it looks like Nvidia is trying to force reviewers to only make positive reviews.
Click to expand...

So lets say that information breaks about x shady thing Nvidia did. Nvidia quickly sends a timestamped message with a read recipte to all of the signatories of it's NDA. Now when they discover the leaked info a day later they really can't comment on it in a negative fashion because it is protected information per the NDA. Discourse freezes on this topic. They can only comment on articles someone else posts and not on the substance of the article.

It severely impacts the impact of the negative news item that the company did. It limits their exposure and hit to market value.

A few in the know will realize who signed and who didn't, and who is free to explore the issue fully. Everyone else simply has to either repost articles from the sites that are not signatories, or write their own and defend it in court.

What do you think the smaller hardware review sites will do? Magazines? they will wait and carefully publish summaries from all sides. Protecting themselves and their relationship with Nvidia.

Just because you don't realize how this will work doesn't mean it won't work that way. ;)
 
defaultluser said:
How is this any different from any of their current restrictions on reporting confidential information on new architectures provided in a press packet? If they didn't have you by the balls already, then we'd have all specifications for cards released early.

This just puts these restriction s in writing, instead of just threats of no more invites or review samples.
Click to expand...
Ah, interestingly, sometimes you hear things from employees that they actually want you to tell the public and is CI. I know. Amazing, right? Any source of information from inside the company now becomes NDA.

Hey, if you want your sources of information about NVIDIA to sign that NDA, go for it. I have no issue with that. I personally would not ever sign an NDA like that in a journalistic capacity. Maybe you have different standards. There are tons of sites that signed it, so you should be happy with that.

This is NDA is for journalists, not "card reviewers."

Edit: What if I told you there were people inside NVIDIA that were not thrilled with GPP?
 
Not understanding the potential use of something doesn't mean it's never going to happen.

Lets say you buy a rifle to hunt with. You need to understand the potential danger to people of the weapon and account for that. Sure it's intended use is to hunt. But you know it can do harm to others outside of that.

So can this NDA... just not the same kind of harm. ;)
 
MacLeod said:
I get that. Nvidia gets wind you're looking into GPP so they tell you all about it but "confidentially" and now your're bound by the NDA. But you broke the GPP story based entirely on your own sources and information dug up during your own investigation, right? Wouldn't you still be ok to run the story? You're allowed to use information that you found out on your own. You just couldn't use anything that Nvidia told you.

Again, I suck at legaleeze so I'm not trying to argue. Im legit asking questions.
Click to expand...
Listen. If you want your journalists signing blanket NDAs, go for it. I would never sign that and open myself up to the vast wealth of lawsuits it could invite for publishing things I know to be true, but are CI. Anyone signing that is painting themselves into a box. Baseless lawsuits are still lawsuits that have to be defended in court. I spent nearly a quarter million dollars defending against Infinium Labs' baseless lawsuit. No way in hell I would ever want to give NVIDIA one inch better ground on going after me in a court of law. And let's face it, that is exactly what that NDA is for.
 
MacLeod said:
I get that. Nvidia gets wind you're looking into GPP so they tell you all about it but "confidentially" and now your're bound by the NDA. But you broke the GPP story based entirely on your own sources and information dug up during your own investigation, right? Wouldn't you still be ok to run the story? You're allowed to use information that you found out on your own. You just couldn't use anything that Nvidia told you.

Again, I suck at legaleeze so I'm not trying to argue. Im legit asking questions.
Click to expand...


Ok this is actually rather easy. Lets say you are looking into GPP and invidia comes and says. "Hey we're doing GPP with our vendors in an effort to blah blah blah spin spin spin" They give you simply everything on it and say. "Remember this is Confidential Information. Just wanted you to be in the know!" Now you have to take the potentially mountains of information Nvidia gave you. Cross check it to what you've discovered. Anything that matches you can't report on.

Now your story is 1. Delayed for the legal safety checks. 2. neutered because you are now an insider to what Nvidia is doing. 3. You can't even dump stock you own in Nvidia because now you are an insider as far as insider trading is considered.

Do you see now the potential dangers?
 
GDI Lord said:
Just for the sake of argument, if you or your family members are employed in a TV manufacturer, and my TV company does some SERIOUSLY DUBIOUSLY legal crap and hurts that company and so now you or your family members are retrenched, unemployed and lose your house, will you still recommend my TV brand to people looking for a new TV? Would you buy one of my TVs when you next need a TV?

I'm not asking you to reply, I'm asking you to think.
Click to expand...
You work for AMD, lol? So thats the basis for your reasoning? That because AMD is a suffering, financially weak company whose employees may be out of jobs is the main reason to base your HW purchases on? Ok, gotcha. Sorry to be the one to break the news, but thousands of companies around the world are going bust for not being able to perform well or due to competition being ahead of them, thats the nature of things in business. Aside from that, where is the "SERIOUSLY DUBIOUSLY legal crap" that you are referring to? The NDA which is what this topic is about? Please be specific as the actual clauses or sections of the document that "SERIOUSLY DUBIOUSLY legal crap" refers to within it.
 
SPARTAN VI said:
GN's legal correspondent? Can you clarify how he didn't have a clue?
Click to expand...
Certain industries have certain practises the NDA can differ from one to another. If he seen only the ones regarding other subjects does that tell you anything instead that whole case was around wording nothing specific towards Nvidia NDA or previous Nvidia NDA.
He did not even show concern that the duration was for 5 years. He just said just don't sign it if you have problems with this...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this
MacLeod said:
I hear ya. It's not so much chapter and verse of the NDA that's the problem, it's the potential financial and time consuming black whole of legal battles and bullshit you may have to deal with every time you publish and article Nvidia might not like. I hadn't thought of that.
Click to expand...
I read every NDA I sign, carefully. This NDA is simply a tool being used by NVIDIA to, if nothing else, scare journalists into being worried about what they are saying about NVIDIA. That said, no journalist worth his salt would ever sign this document. Also, how many "industry analysts" got this NDA?
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Certain industries have certain practises the NDA can differ from one to another. If he seen only the ones regarding other subjects does that tell you anything instead that whole case was around wording nothing specific towards Nvidia NDA or previous Nvidia NDA.
He did not even show concern that the duration was for 5 years. He just said just don't sign it if you have problems with this...
Click to expand...

We must have watched a different video. GN's legal guy surprised me with his correct use of industry technical jargon, specs, and the fact that he called out "Turing" seemed very unusual for someone who is unfamiliar with the industry.
 
50Cal said:
you missed my point. Basically Alex Jones would call anyone that isn't right of an Aryan Nation member would be the anti-christ ultra hardcore liberal and then spew all sorts of conspiracy theories about said company. That wasn't race baiting, that was your lack of understand/reading comprehension or more of the "oh im the victim here"
Click to expand...

Oh noes, Kyle is on the offensive against MY favorite, I mean last time it was against AMD, but who cares about them.

Keep on keeping people honest [H], let the haters walk themselves out.
 
SPARTAN VI said:
We must have watched a different video. GN's legal guy surprised me with his correct use of industry technical jargon, specs, and the fact that he called out "Turing" seemed very unusual for someone who is unfamiliar with the industry.
Click to expand...

I hate to do this... but if I have a call on youtube with someone I introduce as my lawyer. Do we all instantly accept that this "lawyer" is the most qualified person to discuss. Not saying he isn't but I get a chuckle thinking about the what if.
 
Grimlaking said:
I hate to do this... but if I have a call on youtube with someone I introduce as my lawyer. Do we all instantly accept that this "lawyer" is the most qualified person to discuss. Not saying he isn't but I get a chuckle thinking about the what if.
Click to expand...
I liken it to, "I'm not a real Doctor, but I play one on TV"... He could have been a family court lawyer with computer knowledge. It's a video that doesn't cut it for me.
 
Manny Calavera said:
Who puts out 10+ year NDA's? The UN and governments. I have signed a few over the years,with both. Still,this NDA has been looked over by a real lawyer via GamersNexus with no real ill will found on NVIDIA's part by the lawyer.
Click to expand...
Yea, you kinda missed my point. We aren't talking about governments and secrets. We are talking companies and corporations and their products. Very different circumstances. Sometimes, depending on your job in the government, you could be under a lifetime NDA depending on your security clearance. That has nothing to do with this topic.
 
Gideon said:
To be honest I was surprised you financially survived that fight with Infinium labs.
Click to expand...
I spent every penny of savings over that and about lost my house as well. You can grandstand on your Youtube channel about signing that NDA, but until you have gone to the mat about writing words on a webpage, you simply do not know what you are giving up when you sign that NDA. And the Infinium Labs CEO just went to prison for ANOTHER pump and dump scheme.
 
Grimlaking said:
I hate to do this... but if I have a call on youtube with someone I introduce as my lawyer. Do we all instantly accept that this "lawyer" is the most qualified person to discuss. Not saying he isn't but I get a chuckle thinking about the what if.
Click to expand...

Probably not the most qualified person, but miles better than the armchair lawyers we have who are still stuck speculating on the "FBO" term. Combine the lawyer with the fact that Steve's historically been a straight shooter; he's demonstrated that he'll burn bridges with vendors/brands over something as fundamental as honesty. E.g. CoolerMaster stopped sampling them after GN's H500P review, so they've been sourcing the hardware themselves. Patreon and merchandizing divest their revenue streams and allow them to tarnish vendor relations with their scathing feedback. They were also among the first to call-out Nvidia's bullshit for the hardware differences between GTX 1060 3GB vs 6GB SKUs, the silent downgrade of the GT 1030, and the new GTX 1050 3GB SKU. Basically, they're among the last of the tech press I'd expect to ever bend-a-knee to Nvidia.
 
SPARTAN VI said:
Probably not the most qualified person, but miles better than the armchair lawyers we have who are still stuck speculating on the "FBO" term. Combine the lawyer with the fact that Steve's historically been a straight shooter; he's demonstrated that he'll burn bridges with vendors/brands over something as simple as honesty. E.g. CoolerMaster stopped sampling them after GN's H500P review, so they've been sourcing the hardware themselves. Patreon and merchandizing divest their revenue streams and allow them to tarnish vendor relations with their scathing feedback. They were also among the first to call-out Nvidia's bullshit for the hardware differences between GTX 1060 3GB vs 6GB SKUs, the silent downgrade of the GT 1030, and the new GTX 1050 3GB SKU. Basically, they're among the last of the tech press I'd expect to ever bend-a-knee to Nvidia.
Click to expand...
But if he signed it, he just did bend that knee.
 
SPARTAN VI said:
I disagree, they stated while it is unusual to get a blanket NDA granted they've only ever received one-off NDA's from Nvidia in the past, this NDA was relatively boiler plate to them.
Click to expand...
Boilerplate NDA but never seen this one before. Got it.

Again boilerplate for companies you work for or partner with. This is for journalists.
 
nVidia can probably easily drag legal procedures out till one can't fund it anymore. Let alone, and maybe even foremost, the stress it will have on (small) website owners and their families. For the nVidia lawyers it's just another well paid day at the office. Self-censorship sounds likely to increase.

At the end of the day nVidia wants to update its NDA which they have every right to.

However (also given the nature of nvidia) this is extremely unlikely to accomodate or improve other parties interests other than nVidia's interest. So looking at it from my perspective as a consumer I don't see any benefit compared to the old NDA's for me.
 
Space_Ranger said:
I liken it to, "I'm not a real Doctor, but I play one on TV"... He could have been a family court lawyer with computer knowledge. It's a video that doesn't cut it for me.
Click to expand...
Many of the points he discusses are pretty clear cut and straight-forward and make general sense. To blanket dismiss it because you can not ascertain the lawyers credentials sounds more influenced by bias than proper reason. If anything is suspect in what he says, trust me, alternate legal views by 'real lawyers' will quickly spring out to rebut it. Info like this quickly gets around and there are a LOT of lawyers on the internet. If this lawyer is misleading or wrong, he will quickly be challenged. Not holding my breath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top