Heise: NVIDIA’s new NDA attacks journalistic work

[crisium]

Their justifications are not encouraging.

Guru3d did not address the line "soley for the benefit of Nvidia".

TPU merely said they "disagree" that positive reviews are mandated, and said "We've come across the phrase "in favor of" in many NDAs, not just from NVIDIA, and never once interpreted it as "favorable."".

That's really the line that all the chatter is about, and it must be addressed directly.

When a reviewer signs a statement saying "recipient shall use confidential information solely for the benefit of Nvidia" they need to more clearly explain this exact wording.

 

[DiogoDX]

Techpowerup and Guru3d signed. Their views on the matter:

https://www.techpowerup.com/245507/revised-nvidia-reviewers-nda-raises-eyebrows-our-thoughts
http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/new_nvidia_press_embargo_stirs_things_up.html

Seems like I will remain on youtube for performance comparisons.

 

[bystander36]

Guru3d did not address the line "soley for the benefit of Nvidia".

TPU merely said they "disagree" that positive reviews are mandated, and said "We've come across the phrase "in favor of" in many NDAs, not just from NVIDIA, and never once interpreted it as "favorable."".

That's really the line that all the chatter is about, and it must be addressed directly.

When a reviewer signs a statement saying "recipient shall use confidential information solely for the benefit of Nvidia" they need to more clearly explain this exact wording.

To me, it just says that the review process is in their benefit. It doesn't say that the review must be written in any particular manner. Of course some people are going look for what they want to see.

 

[crisium]

On the plus side, there's no need for Anandtech to sign this since they take weeks (or never) to do GPU reviews anyway.

 

[amenx]

I frankly don't see what was written that is shady. They aren't allowed to reveal confidential info, how is that anything new. It's just there to protect their trade secrets. I also don't see where it was written that reviews must be favorable.

The only ones getting riled up about this are likely the ones who have a grudge against Nvidia as a rule of thumb. At least in regards to this particular article.

AdoredTV is going to jump on this like a dog in heat.

 

[cfenton]

Guru3d did not address the line "soley for the benefit of Nvidia".

TPU merely said they "disagree" that positive reviews are mandated, and said "We've come across the phrase "in favor of" in many NDAs, not just from NVIDIA, and never once interpreted it as "favorable."".

That's really the line that all the chatter is about, and it must be addressed directly.

When a reviewer signs a statement saying "recipient shall use confidential information solely for the benefit of Nvidia" they need to more clearly explain this exact wording.

I'm no legal expert, but as far as I know from other discussions of NDAs, the NDA doesn't apply to a review, it only applies to pre-release information provided by Nvidia. Once a product is released, you can write whatever you want about it.

 

[Headfoot]

If I was a reviewer, I'd sign and change zero of my practices. If nVidia comes to enforce, I'd shutter the company and sell the assets (e.g. site, data, and trademarks) to a new company free from the NDA, perhaps incorporated in another country with no cross border enforcement or much stricter limitations on NDA enforcement. nVidia's real enforcement mechanism is to stop sending people information. Suing a journalist who covers their product is market suicide, so they won't do it in anything less than the most desperate times. This will struggle mightily in enforcement, regardless of what the words on it say.

 

[stAbb]

Is there any site other then heise online that actually had a legal team look at this?
A lawyer wouldn't be my first choice for technical opinions and a tech editor wouldn't be my first choice for legal opinions.

 

[amenx]

I think I'm beginning to grasp the real purpose of this NDA. Not so much bearing on confidential product or tech info per se, but ANY confidential info that Nvidia may share them with. Such as leaks about the GPP details not too long ago. This new NDA may help them keep a lid on such issues so as not blow up in their face. Basically about self-protection. This whole thing may have been inspired by the GPP fiasco.

 

[deathBOB]

Can’t take a position on this without seeing comparable NDAs.

 

[jackstar7]

I'm no legal expert, but as far as I know from other discussions of NDAs, the NDA doesn't apply to a review, it only applies to pre-release information provided by Nvidia. Once a product is released, you can write whatever you want about it.

I am bumping on the idea that if a journalist learns something that's covered by the NDA, but is unfavorable to nV, then they are possibly in legal peril if they stand by their journalistic integrity and post the story.

These kind of things end up hurting the audience because we start to give more attention to rumor sites that are happy to post whatever nonsense tickles them in the moment on the tiniest shred of evidence of... something. And because we may be starved for genuine news, rumors gain more traction and further divide the partisans (fanboys) and alienate folks who just want to know what's going on.

There's so much time spent waiting and speculating between releases that not knowing which outlets are going to be providing honest news (as I'm sure many will not disclose how they handled this NDA) leaves us readers/consumers hindered.

 

[jpiniero]

I frankly don't see what was written that is shady. They aren't allowed to reveal confidential info, how is that anything new. It's just there to protect their trade secrets. I also don't see where it was written that reviews must be favorable.

The only ones getting riled up about this are likely the ones who have a grudge against Nvidia as a rule of thumb. At least in regards to this particular article.

Basically the implication is that the NDA forbids news posts/discussions about rumors pertaining to nVidia even if they have no NDA inside info or gathered info outside from what nVidia told them.

 

[Det0x]

I'm no legal expert, but as far as I know from other discussions of NDAs, the NDA doesn't apply to a review, it only applies to pre-release information provided by Nvidia. Once a product is released, you can write whatever you want about it.

NVIDIA samples usually ship with a PDF titled "reviewer's guide," which only "politely suggests" to reviewers something along the lines of "here's our cool new graphics card that's capable of playing this game at that resolution with these settings, just don't test it on something like Linux with Nouveau drivers, because that either won't work or won't show what our card is truly capable of." Heise's close inspection of the latest NDA by NVIDIA suggests to them that NVIDIA is mandating positive reviews now.

So lets say if Nvidia forced a media publisher to review their new graphic card in a benchmark-suite containing 7 out of 8 games being "the way it's meant to be played" titles, that would be okai for you ?

Or enforcing cherrypicked "non standard" graphic-settings in games to unrealistically screw the results in their favor, at the expense of their competition, giving you a flawed comparison between the cards being tested for basically all players that actally play the game ?

And when the next "3.5gigs gtx 970" are found, are media providers even allowed to report on it, since it could count as a "trade secret" ?
What about the next iteration of GPP ? Should everyone keep quiet and never mention it ?

The list goes on and on..

Iam not trying to single you out cfenton, your post only gave me a opportunity vent my thoughts on the subject

 

[crisium]

I wish I had something to add, but you may be right that it's a direct response to the GPP leaks. And it seems like it could cover things like the GTX 970 false advertising. If this is used to crackdown on investigative journalism then we have a problem.

 

[cfenton]

So lets say if Nvidia forced a media publisher to review their new graphic card in a benchmark-suite containing 7 out of 8 games being "the way it's meant to be played" titles, that would be okai for you ?

Or enforcing cherrypicked "non standard" graphic-settings in games to unrealistically screw the results in their favor, at the expense of their competition, giving you a flawed comparison between the cards being tested for basically all players that actally play the game ?

And when the next "3.5gigs gtx 970" are found, are media providers even allowed to report on it, since it could count as a "trade secret" ?
What about the next iteration of GPP ? Should everyone keep quiet and never mention it ?

The list goes on and on..

Iam not trying to single you out cfenton, your post only gave me a opportunity vent my thoughts on the subject

Those situations would be bad, but I don't think Nvidia is doing anything like that. As I said, this NDA applies to pre-release information provided by Nvidia. Once the product is on shelves, anyone can write whatever they want about it. Nvidia can suggest settings, but they can't do anything if reviewers don't follow their guide.

As for the 3.5GB thing, that wasn't information provided by Nvidia, that was information obtained by tech sites by testing the card. Nvidia can't prevent them from reporting findings based on their own research.

GPP, I have no idea. That's a weird one since it was an agreement between Nvidia and it's board partners. Presumably it would be the board partner breaking an agreement by leaking the agreement. After all, Nvidia didn't provide copies of the GPP to the press and then tell them not to report on it.

I wish I had something to add, but you may be right that it's a direct response to the GPP leaks. And it seems like it could cover things like the GTX 970 false advertising. If this is used to crackdown on investigative journalism then we have a problem.

Investigative journalists don't sign NDAs. Most of the tech press are not investigative journalists.

 

[bystander36]

Basically the implication is that the NDA forbids news posts/discussions about rumors pertaining to nVidia even if they have no NDA inside info or gathered info outside from what nVidia told them.

Where does it say this in the NDA?

 

[moonbogg]

Everything Nvidia does is in the interest of their fans, so stop complaining and show them your respect by purchasing a brand new $2,000 Gsync HDR monitor, which, by the way, has received only glowing reviews thus far from the likes of PC perspective.

 

[Hitman928]

After having a little time to sit and read the NDA, I'm on the side that I don't see anything that is problematic here. The one case might be in a situation like GPP where there's rumors floating so a tech journalist contacts Nvidia for comment, then Nvidia tells them the details but reminds them of the NDA they signed forcing the journalist to then keep quiet about any details Nvidia doesn't want them to share. Now, I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea if this NDA would actual be enforceable for something like that or not, but that's the one angle that I can see from my layman eyes that might be shady.

 

[Campy]

GamersNexus discuss the NDA with a lawyer:

 

[Shamrock]

An easy way to get around this?

Only review an NVidia product once it is on the shelves.

 

[deathBOB]

After having a little time to sit and read the NDA, I'm on the side that I don't see anything that is problematic here. The one case might be in a situation like GPP where there's rumors floating so a tech journalist contacts Nvidia for comment, then Nvidia tells them the details but reminds them of the NDA they signed forcing the journalist to then keep quiet about any details Nvidia doesn't want them to share. Now, I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea if this NDA would actual be enforceable for something like that or not, but that's the one angle that I can see from my layman eyes that might be shady.

A rumor they learn from a third party wouldn’t be confidential information. Maybe they couldn’t publish what information Nvidia provided but nothing would stop them from discussing the rumor.

 

[Hitman928]

A rumor they learn from a third party wouldn’t be confidential information. Maybe they couldn’t publish what information Nvidia provided but nothing would stop them from discussing the rumor.

That's what I mean though. They could discuss that the rumor exists and any rumored information in the public domain, but they couldn't share any actual details confirmed to them by Nvidia.This is all just supposition on my part and I doubt it would ever play out that way.

 

[amenx]

An easy way to get around this?

Only review an NVidia product once it is on the shelves.

This NDA has very little to do with product reviews. Its more about any confidential info that Nvidia may share it with. It can apply to many things aside from products. It doesnt affect the nature of the reviews and reviewers can still give negative conclusions about the product.

 

[Paratus]

GamersNexus discuss the NDA with a lawyer:

I suggest everyone with an interest in the topic listen to this.

I’m definitely not an NV supporter as I’m on my sixth straight ATI/AMD card since ‘99 but this mostly just sounds bad. It legally likely isn’t that bad, at least according to the lawyer GN talked too.

 

[amenx]

The impression I got from the vid is that its pretty standard fare in terms of NDAs involving tech companies.