• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

NVIDIA strong arm tactics?

rdqlus said:
Tweaktown posted a review of the MSI card 2 minutes after the NDA lifted. Obviously MSI sent the card to them a minimum of a few days earlier which is in violation of the NDA between nVidia and MSI. This is why nVidia is pissed at MSI and rightfully so.

Folks making nVidia out to be the bad guy here are clueless as to how a NDA works.
Click to expand...

you realize they send review samples weeks in advance right?

the reason nvidia is pissed is a lot more simpler and thats the fact that tweaktown is probably blacklisted by nvidia on receiving review samples for nvidia products.

but i honestly don't give a shit. tweaktowns a sour apple in the tech review community.
 
If nVidia doesn't want TweakTown to have review samples and one of their vendors supplies them one, I'd expect nVidia to ask MSI to stop it. The rest could just be TweakTown creating drama. Could have been no strong arm tactics at all. If I were responsible for sites getting review samples with MSI and I got an email from nVidia asking me not to give, what is in their eyes, this rogue site review samples, as a business partner, I'd be inclined to honor the request.

Also look at it from MSI's PoV. They supply TweakTown with a review sample and apparently they did have an NDA in force with TweakTown, and Tweaktown releases an early review.

TweakTown says: No foul. It wasn't the card we got from you. It was supplied by some guy out of the back of a van in downtown Taipei. We didn't break the NDA we had with you.

If I was MSI: Listen D-bag. I sent you a review sample and you signed an NDA. How the hell do I know you didn't use the one I sent you? Besides, nVidia knows I sent you a sample and now I'm in the position of having to explain to them why I would do that with a site that's known for releasing early reviews. Low and behold, you go and do it again. How the hell do you think it makes me look?

Now, it seems like MSI took a much gentler approach to their response. They want TweakTown to sort things with nVidia. Seems like nVidia offered to start sending them review samples but they said since nVidia hasn't offered them review samples of the major releases (670, 680, 690) this gen they aren't going to be happy with the small change releases now. Maybe next gen if they give them cards from the start of the series.

Seems to me that for this to have happened someone at MSI pulled strings for TweakTown to try and sort the situation out. Maybe not? Maybe nVidia just realized they can't stop TweakTown from getting samples and decided it would be better to have them under NDA? Either way, they sure didn't do MSI any favors by pulling their early review release when they had a legit MSI sample in house.
 
GotNoRice said:
I noticed you abstained from blessing us with your "logic", but I figured you were just doing us a favor.
Click to expand...

His point is self-evident. An NDA, or "non-disclosure agreement" is a contract. A contract is:

1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
2. an agreement enforceable by law.
3. the written form of such an agreement.

According to Tweak-Town, they have not been able to establish a dialog with nVidia in order to enter into an NDA. This means they are not a party to any contract with nVidia. Therefore, any terms of an NDA do not apply to them.

What part of this don't you get?
 
anubis44 said:
His point is self-evident. An NDA, or "non-disclosure agreement" is a contract. A contract is:

1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
2. an agreement enforceable by law.
3. the written form of such an agreement.

According to Tweak-Town, they have not been able to establish a dialog with nVidia in order to enter into an NDA. This means they are not a party to any contract with nVidia. Therefore, any terms of an NDA do not apply to them.

What part of this don't you get?
Click to expand...

GotNoRice said:
Regardless of them not having signed an NDA, tweaktown still has a history of leaking product reviews early.

For this reason alone, not having anything to do with an NDA, and even if tweaktown didn't do anything technically wrong, nvidia still has reason to want to deny them access to cards in the future.

You act like Nvidia shouldn't be mad that Tweaktown is constantly spoiling their launches. They should be mad, and they are.
Click to expand...

What part of this don't you get? :rolleyes:
 
Nvidia always has been a thug type company. Just another reason to not give them your business.
 
GotNoRice said:
What part of this don't you get? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

lol one day when your reasoning skills have matured and you are no longer taking up the cause for Nvidia, you'll see why we are right amd you are wrong...

MSI is at fault here for not passing the NDA to Tweak Town.

Nvidia is at fault here for trying to be a bully about the whole mess and threatening MSI wih no more cards. If I was MSI, I'd be like "FINE, AMD would love to have my business".
 
It's all beside the point, TT screwed the distribution process with their early review. Nvidia didn't loose out, the review was good except for the childish rants about being ignored. NDA's give suppliers, vendors and "legit" reviewers a target date for being ready. Not everyone involved gets the supplies at the same time. TT stole hits and attention in a disrespectful way and blamed the same company that they were providing free advertising and even more excitement for. Hippocracy and so are many of the rants on this thread.
 
GotNoRice said:
What part of this don't you get? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That is an inadequate response to my question. I don't give a sh!t what you think is fair. I'm talking about your contention that TT should be bound by an agreement to which they were never a party.

In a court of law, if you were to say, "No, Your Honour, I don't have a contract with this person, because he was really mean to me!" the judge is NOT going to say: "Oh, well then! If he was MEAN to you, then that's different. In that case, I'm going to bind the other party to a contract they never entered into!"

You must have your head up your a$$ if you expect somebody to be legally bound to do something for you if they never agreed to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top