nvidia Nvidia's new NDA requirement for early hardware states "The recipient uses confidential information exclusively for the benefit of Nvidia"

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Stefan Payne said:

So you just assume that the NDA does not apply and you can't be sued?

it is not an assumption.

 

https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-contracts-forms/will-your-contract-be-enforced-under-the-law.html

 

Not that you are bothering to read any of the evidence posted for you.

 

BTW, marking peoples posts as funny does not prove anything other than you are bitter.

[Stefan Payne]

So here is the Problem.

You assume that the Contract doesn't apply and if you violate it? Naa, doesn't matter.

While Heise follows it to the letter and assumes that it does apply and that there will be legal rammifications if they violate it.

 

So in other words, you agree with Heise but you don't care about violating this document (much) while Heise does care.

So you are just downplaying the Issue with this document and assume that you are safe...

 

And what if you are wrong?

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

So here is the Problem.

You assume that the Contract doesn't apply and if you violate it? Naa, doesn't matter.

While Heise follows it to the letter and assumes that it does apply and that there will be legal rammifications if they violate it.

 

So in other words, you agree with Heise but you don't care about violating this document (much) while Heise does care.

So you are just downplaying the Issue with this document and assume that you are safe...

 

And what if you are wrong?

The problem is you are making assumptions and taking the word of heise over every single other party who has weighed in.

 

Lacion is right, you are just going in circles with irrelevant rhetoric.  Feel free to keep discussing this with yourself. Maybe someone else will join in, but sufficient evidence has been posted and points have been made for the any half rational person to understand what is going on.

[PopReference]

6 hours ago, Sierra Fox said:

lol. ok rational random person on the internet

 

eeeeeedit:

 

I just stated an opinion. Why are my responses so hard to take? Maybe take some of that advice for yourself.

[Stefan Payne]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

The problem is you are making assumptions and taking the word of heise over every single other party who has weighed in.

...wich is about the same...

Every single party, including you, agrees with Heise about the NDA...

 

The only difference they see is that Heise follows it to the letter and assumes the worst, the others assume the best and that they can't be sued by nVidia. And also they worked well with nVidia, so who cares.

And that is also the position you try to make. That the legal implications are irrelevant and its not a legally binding document anyway...

 

But in terms of the NDA itself, everyone, including you, agrees that it is kinda shit and has some weird points.

[PopReference]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

So asking the impossible because people cannot actually show you an NDA agreement because they are in themselves covered by the NDA. The only thing we can give you is literature on the topic and gain understanding from those rather than demanding copies of documents no one can give you because they are protected by the very thing we are talking about.

 

Even if this wasn't the case I wouldn't exactly be inclined to hand out a copy on a forum anyway.

 

Thing is I'm not even sure what your point of view even is or what you are trying to say. I don't know why you are saying some of the things you are. Maybe it's been lost in translation or in the multiple replies etc so would be good if you could clarify those points again.

Yeah, I've said as much in this thread. It's not matter of what is or isn't, I just have my suspicions for the use of this contract and questioned the problems with and around it. Most of the "debunking" of problems in really only come down to 'just trust us' and gloss over issues will adding more in their statements. But I have little reason to just trust, but even if I choose to, I would still want to have some confirmation to their claims. The reason the standerd of evidence I had set is so high is mainly mock the claims of "this is normal" or  even "I sign these all the time" and hopefully make people think about the what really has been discussed, does it make sense, what are the industries best practices, and maybe what's written in the contracts they've sign in their life and gong forward.

 

They main problem with this thread is people 'keep putting words in my mouth' claiming I stand for a position I didn't make and now even claiming I changed my position even though I've stated the same thing over and over again. I didn't start off by taking sides but if people force the issue then what can I do if people attack my positions?

 

I'll say it again more clearly: The contract, itself and the issues surrounding it, I find bad. (Why would I or anyone else sign this document give the circumstances)

If then this is normal in the industry then I would be concerned for what's going on.

...

Now I'll add: This Nvidia Forum Defends Force is cringe worthy 

[leadeater]

15 minutes ago, PopReference said:

Now I'll add: This Nvidia Forum Defends Force is cringe worthy 

This may shock you but I was one of the most outspoken against Nvidia for GPP, difference with that and this is there is enough information from the people who are to sign it and actual legal analysis of it. Now I can fully accept one lawyer can be wrong but as yet there is nothing pointing to this being more than just a standard NDA for the purpose of general information sharing and the protecting of that information.

 

There isn't anything I like about Nvidia as a business, they make excellent products however currently I do not own anything from them, but I don't hate on everything they do just because it bears the logo of Nvidia.

 

15 minutes ago, PopReference said:

gloss over issues will adding more in their statements.

Gloss over what, this is what I mean by I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

15 minutes ago, PopReference said:

But I have little reason to just trust, but even if I choose to, I would still want to have some confirmation to their claims.

I'm not asking you to trust them or anyone, trust doesn't play a part at all. This whole topic is about if there is a problem with the NDA and if it puts undue conditions on people that sign it and so far the evidence is no it does not.

 

And to which claim are you referring to? The originating claim is there is something wrong with this NDA, there actually has to be a problem first. Prove that before anything else and especially before asking others to disprove the first claim which has not been proven.

[Stefan Payne]

10 minutes ago, PopReference said:

I'll say it again more clearly: The contract, itself and the issues surrounding it, I find bad. (Why would I or anyone else sign this document give the circumstances)

If then this is normal in the industry then I would be concerned for what's going on.

...

not involved partys in other forums stated that something like this "general NDA" is uncommon and they haven't seen something like that.

Because the NDAs usually have a certain product or event or something like that in mind - this one does not. And that was one of the main issues Heise had with this contract. The other was the 5 Years or forever for the secrets nVidia might share.

 

That are the main reasons to be sceptical about this. And as I said, the Pro NDA faction doesn't even defend the NDA!

Its more in the region of "We trust nVidia" or "even if, this document means nothing legally for us". 

But I haven't heard someone really defending the NDA itself.

[PopReference]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

This may shock you but I was one of the most outspoken against Nvidia for GPP, difference with that and this is there is enough information from the people who are to sign it and actual legal analysis of it. Now I can fully accept one lawyer can be wrong but as yet there is nothing pointing to this being more than just a standard NDA for the purpose of general information sharing and the protecting of that information.

 

There isn't anything I like about Nvidia as a business, they make excellent products however currently I do not own anything from them, but I don't hate on everything they do just because it bears the logo of Nvidia.

 

Gloss over what, this is what I mean by I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

I'm not asking you to trust them or anyone, trust doesn't play a part at all. This whole topic is about if there is a problem with the NDA and if it puts undue conditions on people that sign it and so far the evidence is no it does not.

 

And to which claim are you referring to? The originating claim is there is something wrong with this NDA, there actually has to be a problem first. Prove that before anything else and especially before asking others to disprove your first claim which has not been proven.

I wasn't referencing yourself with that comment. It really makes it hard when you keep dropping the context from posts, I was obviously speaking generally because you referenced who the whole thread and the confusion it. This is really annoying because I have to write long sentences that can start to loose all sense as I have to explain things to ridiculous degree.

 

I've already mention the issue of the time frame, how quickly the signing had to take place, and how in the GN video, and other defenses I've seen, it's not mentioned and then made worse by their claims of being a single contract for (maybe) multiple releases over the next years.

 

Just try and consider what I've written and not jump to conclusions I don't take.

[leadeater]

35 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

The other was the 5 Years or forever for the secrets nVidia might share.

Any information that becomes public in any way by any means other than breaking that NDA yourself means that information is no longer under the NDA immediately, it ends when it is known. Nvidia might release that information or someone might discover it or another party might leak it but the end result is the same, that information no longer being under NDA.

 

Now even if this wasn't the case Nvidia is not going to go round telling people harmful information about themselves to people under the NDA, someone will leak it and it always happens i.e GPP. Nvidia will only ever give information they want people to know, they just want to control the how and when of that information.

 

This NDA could never be used to hide or silence information that Nvidia wants to because A) If it even worked it expires after 5 years, B) It would never work anyway and it will be leaked.

 

You know the best way to keep information secret, not with an NDA, just don't tell anyone.

 

35 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

not involved partys in other forums stated that something like this "general NDA" is uncommon and they haven't seen something like that.

I'm under one right now with Microsoft, every TAP member is and there are hundreds and thousands of those. Edit: I've been under it for 4 years and counting.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/mwcc/2005/01/04/technology-adoption-programs-under-the-hood-1/

[PopReference]

10 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

not involved partys in other forums stated that something like this "general NDA" is uncommon and they haven't seen something like that.

Because the NDAs usually have a certain product or event or something like that in mind - this one does not. And that was one of the main issues Heise had with this contract. The other was the 5 Years or forever for the secrets nVidia might share.

 

That are the main reasons to be sceptical about this. And as I said, the Pro NDA faction doesn't even defend the NDA!

Its more in the region of "We trust nVidia" or "even if, this document means nothing legally for us". 

But I haven't heard someone really defending the NDA itself.

Yeah I can agree with that. But I even take the comparably weak standpoints and most of this thread has ended up with trying to debate the idea of NDAs, contracts, and agreements as concepts. Truly frustrating.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, PopReference said:

Yeah I can agree with that. But I even take the comparably weak standpoints and most of this thread has ended up with trying to debate the idea of NDAs, contracts, and agreements as concepts. Truly frustrating.

There is nothing to debate, it's cut and dry. It is not ambiguous or arbitrary,   It has nothing to do with beliefs,  trust, faith or assumptions. It is a black and white agreement about what information the recipient party is allowed to publish and what they aren't. It is clearly defined, there is an entire paragraph that qualifies when the NDA is no longer applicable  and for everything else there is the 5 year limitation.  It's not that complicated and quite frankly only a troll or someone without any ability to learn would keep arguing.

 

One last time,

1. it is impossible to use this NDA to force someone into silence,  for multiple reasons.

2. 5 years is a standard length for NDA's there is nothing outlandish about that.

3. There is no way this NDA can force reviewer to say specific things about any product.

4. The fact it is a generic NDA and not product specific means nothing., zip, zilch, nada.

These are not opinions or assumptions, they are not beliefs or arbitrary concepts, they are facts cold and hard.

 

Anyone who thinks nvidia is going to try and use an NDA to hide illegal or unethical secrets is fooling themselves, it just won't happen, it makes no sense, it's illegal and it would only cost them more in the long run.  there is literally nothing good to come of that. 

 

 

[Ryujin2003]

A lot of crap in this thread already.

 

The "benefit" to NVIDIA doesn't mean only being able to say things good, it's about the information being used for NVIDIA. You are not allowed to sell it to other publications or for your own benefit other than the line of work that NVIDIA had given it to you.

 

That is to say, if you are a reviewer, you're allowed to review. You cannot sell it to WCCF it Ars for financial benefit, you cannot give the information to an Nvidia competitor, and you cannot use it as leverage against NVIDIA for you're own benefit.

 

If the NVIDIA product sucks, you're allowed to review it as such. You're given the confidential information to accomplish your job and nothing else.

 

Makes sense. Will you get sued for being a fuck head and spilling the beans on the release date? No, probably not. You will probably stop getting that information from NVIDIA. Will you get sued if you give some technical information to a competitor? Then, I'd guess you probably would at that point.

 

 

"Benefit" means that NVIDIA is sharing the confidential information with you, but you do now OWN the information. NVIDIA owns it.

 

[Freeks]

3 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Every single party, including you, agrees with Heise about the NDA...

but... but...

 

Na, for real: Heise just put on a useless shitshow either because they couldn't or didn't want to read that NDA right. People fell for it, grabbed their pitchforks and are now to embarrassed to put 'em down again. The Heise comment section started out as a Nvidia hate-fest but even that is turning around as more people start to think and do research on themselves.

Keep your believes if you wanna stay in your bubble and justify reading Heise non-reflectively. The rest of us will just stay with Golem

[79wjd]

6 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Answer the Question!

 

a) you have signed this NDA

b) nVidia told you about GPP and that its a Company secret

 

What are the consequences for the journalists?
Can or can they not report this issue?

Wait wait wait.....

 

Your argument that this NDA is bad is that it can stop journalists from talking about a GPP equivalent...

 

Except there are two issues here. 

1. Nvidia wouldn't tell journalists wondering secret without an existing NDA. So if Nvidia can't agree to terms with a journalist, then the journalist has no information -- which is no better than having it and not being able to say anything. EXCEPT for point 2:

2. The NDA is irrelevant once the information is made public. So the only scenario where it could even potentially matter is if Nvidia had no intention of ever making the information public, but then what reason could they possibly have to share this confidential information with a third party?

[leadeater]

47 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Your argument that this NDA is bad is that it can stop journalists from talking about a GPP equivalent...

Well if we want to be fully correct with that example then actually no this type of NDA would not stop journalists and reviewers from talking about GPP because both of those are not Nvidia partners and were never going to be invited in to the program.

 

Those partners could, someone did, leak that contract information to a press source which is a breach of that contract, however there was never any NDAs preventing press from talking about it. What we did see is the result of multiple things, partners unwilling to talk about it, likely unable to talk i.e contract terms (not NDA) and Nvidia not wanting to which leads back to the point of if you don't want people to know then don't tell them. We learned nothing about GPP due to that very tactic and NDAs weren't really in the mix at all.

 

So no an NDA between Nvidia and press would not prevent the press from talking about a GPP type contract because Nvidia would never, did never, talk to them about it so would not be subject to an NDA with the press.

[Lathlaer]

Aside from the fact that Linus and Luke also have nothing against that NDA, recent WAN show only convinced me more that signing the NDA is a process that involves dialogue. They were late with signing it and they literally got an email from NVIDIA rep if someone is going to sign this. So yeah, I can't believe this matter couldn't have been clarified prior to making such big of a fuss.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Lathlaer said:

 I can't believe this matter couldn't have been clarified prior to making such big of a fuss.

It could have been, this is clearly an example of heise exchanging reputation for clicks.    The good thing about this is I can safely add another two names to my list of people whom we should never take any advice from (especially if it involves nvidia).

[Froody129]

Lmao guys read the document! They're saying that while you posses confidential information you cannot use that information for your own benefit. It helps Nvidia to have in depth day-one reviews and that's why they send samples. 

On 6/26/2018 at 1:56 AM, laminutederire said:

It could be a flaw they don't show as a flaw but a visible flaw nonetheless.

Once the card has been released that is no longer confidential information because it's in public 

 

This seems like a fairly reasonable NDA to me