The AMD NDA Scandal

[red]

http://techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=441&pgno=0

All of those invited to the event were given an NDA to sign before going on that 5-star, all-expense-paid trip to Singapore. Hidden in that piece of legal boilerplate were some sneaky clauses. Yeah, don't we just love those clauses. This is what Don found in that NDA :

First off, the non-disclosure agreement covered everything confidential said or written over the next two years on the product, and had a duration of five years, during which anything published or used in marketing would have to receive written approval from AMD before it could be used. Worse, at the end of the five years, all copies of the information made would have to be returned to the chipmaker.

Translated, that means those who sign the NDA must get their work approved in writing by AMD before they can be published. If that's not unethical, then we need to rewrite the dictionary. Don stomped his foot right there, and apparently so did other journalists. Good for them!

Finally, AMD agreed to let Don and the other journalists attend the event without signing that particular NDA. Everything was hunky-dory on Day 1 of the event, other than the fact that AMD was merely regurgitating what they had already revealed to the US press (and the entire world online) a whole month ago.

On Day 2 though, they were presented with another NDA to sign before a factory visit. This one stipulated that "any confidential information from this visit would need written approval from corporate communications before it could be used". I don't know about you, but that clause sounds exactly like the clause in the first NDA. The PR person even had the temerity to say that it was "just paperwork and that everyone, be it a president or prime minister, had to sign this document". That was when Don walked out.

Curiously, Don stated that "AMD issued an apology a week later saying the incident was a misunderstanding among certain local staff and that it is not, and has never been, AMD policy to vet the stories of tier-1 publications prior to publication." What exactly did AMD mean by that?

Does that mean it is AMD policy to vet tier-2 and tier-3 publications? I will let you decide for yourselves.

I don't think AMD PR is doing wonders.

[turtletrax]

Another great example of corporate retardation...

[LordEC911]

I dunno who this guy is or much about the site but it just doesn't sit too well with me.
My quick look-through of his site also doesn't help him either.
A bunch of editors and contributors that don't use their real name?

Just seems a little strange.

[Fairydust]

Wow a NDA that stops you from releasing confidential information without approval, stop the presses.

[STEvil]

lmao... what a crybaby.

First was over the line for sure, or at least worded very poorly. Second was quite lenient really.

[BrowncoatGR]

Looks like Intels marketing is at work here IMO

[Indes]

Now im no legal genius or anything but where exactly does this go against what and NDA is? "A non-disclosure agreement (NDA), also called a confidential disclosure agreement (CDA), confidentiality agreement or secrecy agreement, is a legal contract between at least two parties that outlines confidential materials or knowledge the parties wish to share with one another for certain purposes, but wish to restrict from generalized use." Did he expect to be able to publish what amd was doing without their consent? Anyone who thinks that they can walk into AMD or Intel, have a look around, see whats going on with their "brand spankin new architecture and then publish all the information without the businesses consent is just ing stupid. I wish my biggest complaint in life was that i can only go on a FREE 5 star trip if i don't reveal secret information. idiot.

[Kingcarcas]

Wow a NDA that stops you from releasing confidential information without approval, stop the presses.

[Sparky]

[red]

I dunno who this guy is or much about the site but it just doesn't sit too well with me.

http://techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=434&pgno=0
Well it seems AMD confides enough in them to give them a quote of "how the Barcelona will eventually fare against an equivalent Intel processor.

* 20-30 % better performance overall
* 170 % better performance in some benchmarks"

and I'm going to guess that that 170% is STREAM bandwidth lawls http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/5...erformance.png
and 20-30% is specfp_rate http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=735 comparing "equivalent thermal bands" lol

Wow a NDA that stops you from releasing confidential information without approval, stop the presses.

Usually, at least in this business, aren't NDA's usually limited to dated embargoes? If most NDA's required approval before publishing content, how else would the ati hd2900 be slammed?

Did he expect to be able to publish what amd was doing without their consent?

I don't understand the point of showing journalists info they can't publish. Anyway, the article linked to http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.a...tno=432&pgno=0 saying

Instead, those who made the trip to Singapore were treated to news and information on AMD's future plans (think 2009-2010) like Bulldozer, Bobcat and Fusion. Now, that would have been really juicy news... if only it was July 2007. In late August, it was nothing but really stale news. US publications had already posted the same slides a whole month ago. No wonder many of those who attended were reportedly bored to death.

so my logic is that by forcing journalists to consult with AMD before writing about slides that have already been published, AMD wants to use the press as puppets and write mushy sugary articles about their paper products in the far pipeline. *end conspiracy*

[Zytek_Fan]

The way I see it is that AMD wants (soon to be wanted) to withhold as much information as possible. It's understandable if you're in a position AMD is in at the moment, but that is no excuse.

[GD5015]

Where's the problem? If you don't want to sign, leave.

[red]

recap, day 1 of Singapore was recap of bulldozer, fusion, bobcat, etc.
day 2, unclear what it was since Singaporean left, infuriated.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/Database/...07_data006.php
But here, he mentions an embargo for September 11th. Therefore, we can assume powerpointery about Barcelona perhaps.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=9747
Or maybe some "extremely restricted media product sampling ‘strategy’ of this new product" we heard not too long ago.
.......
Some people don't see a problem with journies having to consult with companies about things that they publish. To that, I say, ok

[Zytek_Fan]

Where's the problem? If you don't want to sign, leave.

You bring up a good point. If a site has a problem with it, they don't have to sign it and report their findings. Of course if they "accidentally" report their findings they could get sued...

[Big Whiskey]

The writer should check the law books not the dictionary, it a little something called Proprieraty Knowledge.

I work in manufacturing and disclosing information about customer products or our techiques of production is simiply a no-no

I sure Intel has similar agreements when people visit there plants

[Kunaak]

I dont think he understands what a "NDA" is...
I mean, just take it literally.
NDA means exactly what it sounds like...

"Non Disclosure Agreement".

meaning, keep your mouth shut.

I dont get why hes trying to find a grey area to that.
the word "Non Disclosure" should say it already, literally means "No talking, keep your mouth shut, keep what you see, hear, learn or whatever else, to yourself".

[Zytek_Fan]

I dont think he understands what a "NDA" is...
I mean, just take it literally.
NDA means exactly what it sounds like...

"Non Disclosure Agreement".

meaning, keep your mouth shut.

I dont get why hes trying to find a grey area to that.
the word "Non Disclosure" should say it already, literally means "No talking, keep your mouth shut, keep what you see, hear, learn or whatever else, to yourself".

Exactly, it's like a non disclosure that doctors have.

[Fairydust]

Usually, at least in this business, aren't NDA's usually limited to dated embargoes? If most NDA's required approval before publishing content, how else would the ati hd2900 be slammed?

I do not know what kind of information was given. In my experience the dated "launch NDAs" are used when all information is pre-screened and pre-approved. Maybe they gave em access to more or couldn't pre-screen everything (tour of the factory) and needed an extra safety net.

[Hemi]

this nda stuff is so funny. i bet intel knows more about these new chips than the people signing on the dotted line.

[JumpingJack]

Now im no legal genius or anything but where exactly does this go against what and NDA is? "

I think the author of the article points out that the NDAs AMD were circulating were much more restrictive than prior NDAs:

First off, the non-disclosure agreement covered everything confidential said or written over the next two years on the product, and had a duration of five years, during which anything published or used in marketing would have to receive written approval from AMD before it could be used. Worse, at the end of the five years, all copies of the information made would have to be returned to the chipmaker.

Now, what this implies is that AMD would stop any article that does not meet their approval. This is different than... please don't publish anything before X date and extends it to 'you cannot publish anything until we have had a chance to edit it' approach.

Think about it, if all journalists were required to submit their reports to the company for approval before they could publish them, be it on a product review or on a road map or what ever... would you trust the information that will be publish is accurately reflecting reality?

This is censorship to a degree, in my opinion, and should not be tolerated. It also establishes an aura of manipulation on the part of AMD.

[[XC] leviathan18]

NDA is NDA you sign it and you stay your mouth closed you dont like it dont sign it but then you dont have any kind of information.....

is really that hard to understand ?

[JumpingJack]

NDA is NDA you sign it and you stay your mouth closed you dont like it dont sign it but then you dont have any kind of information.....

is really that hard to understand ?

So you are 'ok' with the idea that any benchmark data, any article written about any product must first be reviewed and approved by the reviewee before the reveiwer can publish it?

Does this not defeat the idea of 'independent, 3rd party evaluations'?

[informal]

I really don't understand the point of this thread and this is why:

I go out and buy a QC Barcelona after the launch date(doesn't matter where,let's say some major online store).
I normally don't need to sign anything,since the chips is available to the public(that's the point).
I take my new shining QC part ,plug it in ,test it thoroughly.I report my findings on my website.I disclose all testing conditions.This is what a review is.
Now to sum it up:
Bought the chip 1 day after the launch. check
Not singed any NDA stuff. check
Tested it and reported my findings. check

Now what is wrong with this line of reasoning?The dude in question clearly wanted to see things prior to the launch but he wanted to do this his way.Well ,excuse me,but that's not the way things work.He wanted the goods,he had a "price" to pay.Simple as that.Nobody can censor your findings after the launch day!Simply don't sign anything,be late a few days or weeks (wrt other reviews) and publish your findings as you wish.

[red]

Well if you've been reading then you might have found that the NDA was just more than an embargo.

Nobody can censor your findings after the launch day!

But they apparently can. Did you miss the 2 and 5 years thing as well as the "must consult with AMD before publishing"?

"AMD issued an apology a week later saying the incident was a misunderstanding among certain local staff and that it is not, and has never been, AMD policy to vet the stories of tier-1 publications prior to publication."

Um, so AMD doesn't care what "confidential" things Anandtech might leak but they apparently do for sites like techarp.com

[informal]

lol man,if i buy a chip(or you or anybody ) no one can censor anything.This stuff you are talking about is for those who signed NDA prior to the launch.
How do you think anyone can sue you for publishing official review(your personal view on the state of things) of some commercially available product??It would be the same as if AMD would sue Anandtech for the latest RevF review they published some months ago.LMAO!

I say this is pure bullocks.