Slashdot Mirror
AMD NDA Scandal
crazyeyes writes "Just two weeks ago, a Thai journalist walked out of the hush-hush AMD event in Singapore over a controversial NDA that required him to 'send any stories to the vendor before his newspaper can publish it.' AMD categorically denied it happened, but today, we not only have proof that it happened, we also have the sordid details of the entire affair. Here's a quote from the editorial: '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.'"
AMD, make better, cooler chips and open your specs or write open source drivers.
What scandal? This is the first I've heard of this so-called "scandal", and it just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. One side said this, the other side said that. What's the news value here? That corporations are big, bad meanies? That's a given.
I didn't think AMD had reached a level where they could pull MS or Intel-type crap like this. Or are they getting too big for their britches?
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
This is a whole new low for AMD, an overt lie and being caught at it. I am really disappointed. I would have expected better from a company that previously worked so well with open source and the media.
But he didn't sign it - "a Thai journalist walked out ... over a controversial NDA"
The story is interesting because AMD is stupid enough to think it should be able to get away with this bullshit.
This is Slashdot. "[Big tech corp] acts like an asshole" is standard fare here.
All I got from the article was that someone is impatient about getting some benchmarks and that a Thai Journalist MIGHT have walked out because of a NDA which may or may not exist... exciting...
It seems that the recent open-source commitment of AMD doesn't show that it's a not-so-much-evil company (no capitalist company can be good IMO) Guess AMD is getting the hang of this business... By the way, has Intel ever done something as stupid as this?
"I decided I could write something better than everything out there in two weeks. And I was right." - Linus Torvalds
Utter scumbags. It's rather satisfying that Intel is creaming them.
unfortunately, there is not verbatim copy of the NDA, only a section that seems to paraphrase.
;-)
a 006.php
It is not unusual to have a NDA covering a longer period so one does not have to sign it each and every occasion. Then, even according to the text such a NDA is only applicable for confidential information. That means, everything posted in the Bankok Post would not be confidential anymore
How much control can AMD have over the articles to be published? Not much probably as long as no confidential information is there. But we'd need to see the original text.
Btw, why not link to the article of the journalist involved:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/Database/05Sep2007_dat
Sometimes bad policy like this is made by ignorant management and not with the intention to screen bad press. Not saying that that is the case here, but the person(s) involved in writing the NDA could very well have been working under the requirement to safeguard information about new amd products until the products are released. Sometimes the paranoid "they're controlling the press" mentality is solely the product of tin foil hats. :)
He refused to sign, AMD relented, and then on Day 2 of the visit he was asked again to sign, and refused. That's what TFA says.
Conclusion?
AMD sucks, the reporter is a hero, and you can't read (or spell).
As a journalist, we're always being asked to sign BS NDAs. Most of us refuse to sign ones far milder than this idiotic one. After all, in the end we always find our what the big secret is anyway. If you're not good at being snoopy, what are you doing as a reporter anyway?
The Real scandal is described here:
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:
Excuse me? If I went on any "5-star, all-expense paid trip to Singapore" at a vendor's expense I'm going to be--and I would deserve to be--fired in less time than it took me to write this note.
Steven
This does not bode well for our chances to get either Open Source drivers or complete specs for ATI chipsets. Sigh.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
will AMD stop at nothing to prevent the free press? its worse than the soviet union.
Let's get this straight: AMD is a company working for profit. They are at least afforded the right to decide what kind of information about unreleased products will be made available to the market. If information (or, heaven forbid, disinformation by the media!) is released that was not part of AMD's market strategy, product strategy, or competitive strategy, it could severely damage their business.
For example, if AMD was targeting 32 TB/s of memory bandwith at 2ms latencies for their year 2 target, that would be quite a sensitive strategy. Make Intel, or any number of small semiconductor companies, aware of this, and there is a strong possibility that instead of joining AMD, they'll fight, and damage AMD's market position.
If a company wants a reporter to sign an NDA, the reporter can sign it, or the reporter can refuse to - it's not like AMD goombas twisted their arm to sign it. Bravo on not being a corporate pawn, but that's where it stops.
You definitely get a plus for reaching -1 insightful
WTF, your rights by the Constitution are restrictions on government, not on private entities. You can sign all your rights away except your life or liberty (slavery for instance).
It is very very common for secrets to be shared with an NDA. And no just because you are a journalist doesn't give you the "right" to share these secrets when you signed an NDA. This journalist decided not to sign, AMD decided not to share its secrets. End of story.
How is this even acting like an ass? AMD is under no obligation to allow journalists on the factory floor to begin with. If they have things in there that they don't want others (read: Intel) to know about, an NDA is a practical necessity. Since the only possible benefit to them for doing something like this is in marketing value, so they made the NDA do a little extra work. Who gives a shit.
Someone had modded him Insightful, then I modded him Overrated. I was surprised the Insightful stuck when he dropped to -1.
From the article, which some comment posters above did not bother to read:
"Finally, AMD agreed to let Don and the other journalists attend the event [in Singapore] without signing that particular NDA... On Day 2 though, they were presented with another NDA to sign before a factory visit. [my emphasis] This one stipulated that "any confidential information from this visit would need written approval from corporate communications before it could be used."
It seems quite common that executives of technical companies have no understanding of their company's products, and because of that they sometimes have sink-the-company ideas. It won't matter to the executive if his company does poorly, he will just get a job somewhere else. When the company lays off employees they will suffer, however.
People with no technical knowledge, and little or no interest in learning about their company's products, should be encouraged to get a job somewhere else, or retire. They are dinosaurs from a pre-tech world.
If you are technically knowledgeable, why let someone stupid ruin your efforts? If you get together with other technically knowledgeable people and use some social skill, you can eliminate ignorant executives from your company.
This company http://www.fryrender.com/ sold a beta version of their rendering software for months while requiring anyone who BOUGHT the beta to sign strict NDA terms (no posting screenshots of the software, no talking about the software et cetera). So you couldn't get any information on a software that's already available to buy. NDAs are mentioned quite frequently on 3D software forums. It seems that all beta testers have to sign them.
So by your logic, all NDAs are invalid since they restrict a person's right to free speech? Get real here.
AMD might be able to get away with it in Singapore? I wonder if Singaporean journalists just get used to the censorship that their (benign and efficient, but totally authoritarian) government imposes on them. I mean, after you've been self-censoring for the government for your whole career, what's the big deal if some other power-that-be start making similar demands?
Of course, there are groups -- particularly among journalists, actually -- who want more freedom of speech. But the devil's advocate inside me has to ask: If Singapore has done so well under the current government, then why mess with success? I mean, hell, CNN has "free speech" and what does it buy Americans? Maybe we need a benevolent autocracy of technocrats too.
your right in your assumption of interest on the story that it not.
Yeah, I agree with you. Sure, the NDA requiring someone to have his story double checked is stupid and the reporter was right to refuse to sign it. Sure, AMD is truly dumb for trying to deny it. They should have just come forward. What I don't understand is why the censorship tag? AFAIK, companies are free to keep secrets and share them with anyone agreeing to their term. Calling this a censorship cheapen the word much like the words peace, terrorists, racism and so on have been cheapened.
The big deal in this IMHO is the fact that AMD denied it, not the NDA itself. And as far as the denial goes, this hardly worth mentioning as a news.
The journalist in question did not sign the aforementioned NDA. He was expressing his disappointment in the other journalists who did sign the agreement, either out of ignorance or apathy. He's also broadcasting the fact that the so called "independent media" of blogs and citizen journalists may not be as independent as it seems, thanks to agreements like this.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Did you sleep all the way through your civics classes? "Freedom of the press" refers to prohibitions by the U.S. Federal government concerning what journalists can publish. Private entities are "free" to restrict how their own confidential information is dispersed.
You really need to get out more often.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Having gone through the NDA process a few times, it's been my experience that it's really a negotiation and rarely a "take it or leave it" affair-they wouldn't be talking NDA if they didn't want to talk to you in the first place, so there's usually some flexibility.
What seems to happen is one or both sides offer an initial NDA that's insane (I think just to see what they can get away with, really); then the idea is to try and negotiate towards a sane(r) middle ground. So without knowing any details, the newspaper could have countered with a suggested NDA of their own, and walked away from the table if AMD wouldn't bend. No story for the paper in this case, but AMD also doesn't get the publicity it needs. If it happens enough with other media organizations, AMD ends up having to be a little more flexible if they want any coverage at all.
Ok, AMD paid for a trip for a bunch of journalists to go to their manufacturing facility and listen to some lame marketing talk and have a look around. Is this the problem? Or is the problem that AMD wanted to stipulate "any confidential information from this visit would need written approval from corporate communications before it could be used"? I quote that from Tech ARP since that seems to be the request that caused them to stamp their little feet.
AMD wants to protect their confidential manufacturing secrets. This is outrageous how?Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
The journalist did and frankly, so do I. Sure, AMD can refuse to show the journalist anything at all but that is still better than reading an article from a seemingly independent journalist who was effectively made a puppet of AMD through an overreaching NDA. An NDA can be okay but this one is excessive since it compromises the journalist's independence.
You forgot to make fun of him for trying to use bbcode on Slashdot.
There's a difference between NDAs on employees (and possibly some other people who have a special relationship with the company, e.g. contractors and some types of beta testers) and those outside those groups. NDAs on the latter serve no valid purpose - permitting companies to control people whose job it is to be independent media (that is, not PR films hired by the company) is not in the interest of society and in fact quite harmful to it. The deception ("that's just paperwork") and lies (that denied the event) make it worse. That's why people are upset.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
I'm sorry, but if I was an executive of a large vendor in the highly competitive tech sector and I allowed reporters to tour my manufacturing plant without signing an NDA... THAT would be a sink-the-company idea.
You don't give out tours of the factory to give journos the scoop on everything you're working on for the next ten years. You do it to create goodwill, spin some big yarns full of impressive figures, give the writers something to yak about at the subsequent briefing/luncheon, etc.
If you go on a factory tour expecting to find tanks full of cloned aliens in the basement, you're not just a bad reporter, you're an idiot.
Breakfast served all day!
Well, there's sort of a difference. The difference is that the employees are 'inside the group.' Just as a signer of this NDA is 'inside the group.' Same difference. This guy is just howling because he intends to remain an independent journalist. What AMD is doing is not wrong, but he's in the right to point out loudly that they're doing it, to help identify any other journalists who sign the NDA.
The only parties acting 'unethically' are any other journalists who sign the NDA. And AMD is a shade grayer for asking them to sign it. But they're still just a business like they were yesterday, and NDAs are part of business.
Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
I suspect that it was probably a different NDA. It is fairly common to be asked to sign a standard NDA before touring a manufacturing facility.
I'm going to reply to you and to the ones below you who don't think this is a freedom of speech issue because the federal government isn't doing it.
Just like a person can be sued for wrongful imprisonment, another person can be sued for slander, individuals can sue private entities who infringe on their rights. They may (or may not) be able to make a federal case out of it, but that doesn't mean there aren't protections against these things. Governments (ideally) do two things: protect me from you, and protect me from themselves.
Now, lets get on with this journalist's problem. His problem wasn't with the NDA in itself. The problem that any work that he produced that mentioned the Barcelona product line had to be approved by AMD itself, and at the end of five years, all of his own work that was related to Barcelona had to be returned to AMD. If you don't see how that's objectionable, you deserve to be deceived. That little part gives AMD the right to edit and refuse any report on the Barcelona line. Barcelona chips are just two Athlon XPs duct-taped together? Guess what. If you signed that NDA, AMD has the right to control that information. Barcelona chips are hot enough to roast a full pig? Sorry, you signed the NDA and we have the right to review your work for inaccuracies. So this is an issue of freedom of the press. Not freedom from the tyranny of the government, but freedom from the tyranny of those who would bind us by legal contracts, ignoring social contract that they diminish by continuing to think that their corporate identities supersede the rights guaranteed to all humans by virtue of being born.
AMD needs to let the journalists print what they print and let their chips stand on their own merits. Anything less than that and you have to consider that what AMD spews out aren't facts about their product, but carefully crafted advertisements.
http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
Right. The guy accepted a vacation package paid for by AMD, showed up at a fluff PR event in Singapore, then went home without any story at all. What a hero. He better buy a second phone right away, or else the New York Times hiring office might not be able to get through the busy signal.
Breakfast served all day!
The question that needs examination is what is the purpose of AMD doing this. Isn't it just a method to expand their marketing arm to include so-called independent reporters. It seems to me that any reporter that signs such an NDA is not worth listening to. I might as well read the AMD press releases.
I think the reason this story is interesting is the hint it gives that AMD is having real trouble getting working Barcelona parts in any volume. Looks to me like they set this thing up because they either hoped to have good news, and then didn't, or because they just want to try to distract people from the Barcelona delays. Either way, seems like baaaaaad news.
All I can say is, I hope they pull out of this.
Your god may be dead, but mine aren't!
Are you implying that AMD has executives who don't understand that what AMD produces is a bunch of fluff for Fanboyz to toot about? And that because of this they don't recognize that they blow it bigtime with said Fanboyz when they don't run a squeaky-clean operation?
Because I don't get your comment otherwise. I strongly suspect that AMD management has other priorities.
You think journalists should be allowed to walk through AMDs new plant without signing an NDA? Why do they even need to make the plant visit to report on the AMD product? That's specifically what the 'second day' NDA agreement seems to address: the plant visit.
This is a PR issue for AMD and that's what they should be handling better. Nothing more.
Most businesses aren't run by Engineers. I have worked in Engineer-run and founded companies, and it's a GREAT place to work in product development. But those aren't necessarily the best companies overall, because nerds don't necessarily do business well.
Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
Why do AMD have to deny that the event happened?
His exploit "just works". Apple fanbois everywhere implode in a self-collapsing vortex of cognitive dissonance. by jjack
So on day 2 they threatened him and his family if he didn't sign the NDA? And they shackled him to a rusty pipe and hooked electrodes up to his eyeballs, but he escaped by chewing off his own head? After swimming through molten sewage to freedom, he took time to defuse the nuclear bomb AMD had secreted under Raffles Place, to report a jaywalker to the authorities, and to rescue a puppy dog from a burning building? Wait, none of that happened...they asked him to sign an NDA, which is their right, and he declined and departed, which is his right. Where does the heroism come into play?
I don't even see why "AMD sucks." They could've just released no information at all, but decided it would be advantageous to release info under extremely restrictive terms. Obviously this guy didn't like the terms, but big deal. Am I a hero for not buying a Lamborghini because I don't like the terms? Cool.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Seriously, who is this guy? All he ever does is post stories that link to sketchy blog postings that tend to bash MS and other big corporations. I'll be amazed when I see a story by him that contains some actual substance.
"What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
"Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
No, you are mistaken. Firstly, the agreement is between AMD and a person, not a journalist (that is, he is still covered by the NDA even he stops being a journalist), and thus there is no question regarding freedom of press. Secondly, all that the agreement says is that from the time X signs this agreement, X is to treat anything about Barcelona as confidential (yes, even what is otherwise in the public domain -- an NDA places restrictions to one, not everybody, and that is why what the NDA asks for is legit).
Everyone wants the press writes only flattering stuff about them.
NDA is normal, walking away before signing an NDA is also normal.
Wtf is so scandalous here?
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
[b]LOL![/b]
While the article goes on to imply that that statement is the equivalent of agreeing to let AMD rape the reporter's baby, I just don't see it. They are bringing these guys into a private building where trade secrets are in use and don't want it all published in some article or blog.
I fail to see the egregiousness here. What's more I don't see how anyone with even half a brain would see anything wrong here. Please explain what exactly AMD is trying to "get away" with?
Without any story? So what is it we're commenting right now?
The bill of rights is limits on what the government can do unilaterally through force of law. Those are your constitutional rights, and you may suspend them as you see fit, especially if it gets you some benefit. (For example, if you've ever gotten a DMV ticket, you probably waived your right to a trial by jury to get it over with faster.)
An NDA is a perfectly acceptable contract -- you agree not to tell, and I agree to tell you something I wouldn't otherwise. You could even argue that the NDA is part of your first amendment right of freedom to associate. This is NOT legal, and they cannot enforce this in a court of law. Yes, they can. Go to your local community college and take a basic business law class. You're woefully underinformed as to what the law will and won't do, who the Constitution applies to, and apparently even the basic understanding of what the Bill of Rights says.
("Congress shall make no law..." can be stretched to apply to the various legislatures of the states fairly well. Hoewver, we do NOT want any legal precdent at all eqauting "business" with "congress" in any way. I don't want Microsoft to have even the slightest chance of being able to declare war.)
If any company has to go through lengths like this is bad. Usually a sign they don't want anyone to know they are gonna tank.
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
The journalist just had to refuse the NDA.
This is akin to bitching about a beta testing games NDA and then still continue in the beta.
If you don't like the terms of the deal, then don't go through with it.
...
That's how Overrated and Underrated work. (also allows for things like +5 Troll)
Independent media has always been an oxymoron. End of the day someone pays for the cheese.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
If the article had the headline: "Our official AMD Review"
and then had four blank pages.
Wow, this must be a new low for you Twitter, now telling people to commit suicide. How much lower will you go Twitter? Will you go out and actually shoot those that work at Microsoft? Shoot people who use Windows? Twitter, you have become such a nutcase no wonder your whole account was modded down into oblivion. Keep creating new accounts and every one of them will eventually be modded into oblivion like your twitter account.
Perhaps with a chimp leading them, no?
Or, quoting an old arab saying: "beware of what you wish, because you might get it!"
I know lots of folks don't read the stories, but you could at least try to make it NINE WORDS into the summary before responding! The FIRST SENTENCE of the post was not exactly an SAT-level reading comprehension test.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
see http://www.bangkokpost.com/Database/05Sep2007_data 006.php
Then note how much non-news this really is. A bunch of local yokels got a bit enamored with themselves.
Nothing to see here. Move along and smear somone else.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
AMD is protecting their confidential information... if a journalist has AMD Confidential and Proprietary information, then anything they write about AMD's new, mostly-secret products needs review by AMD to make sure that the vendor didn't spill anything confidential about upcoming products. .... this is a 'scandal'? It's necessary and proper legal protection for their information. This is about as 'scandalous' as the US government clearing folks, letting them access cleared data, and then expecting them to pass any information they release about secret projects through a censor to get checked for the particular secret portions of those projects (TEMPEST shielding ... we use it... but you can't tell them how to make it, cut that part out and you're good to send).
This is either sensationalist or stupid. Looks like it comes from the "information wants to be free" hacker crowd.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
It's AMD's responsibility to keep trade secrets secret. If they don't want a trade secret or confidential material to be reported, don't show it to a bunch of reporters.
Asking reporters to sign NDAs that require ANY "approval" of what is to be published is completely contrary to the entire basis under which the free press operates.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
As the end of TFA explains, this is a way to ensure that anything written about the chip will either be favorable or devoid of detail. It's an attempt to manipulate the reviews, which is dirty pool and bad for consumers. Even if they have the right to, it's nasty behavior.
???? He seems to be the only one who got an interesting story at all. Everyone else just printed a bunch of press releases from AMD. Of the hundred (totally guessing) reporters at this event, he's the only one who will stand out in an editor's mind when it comes time to hire someone.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Reporters sign NDAs all the time, especially in the technology business. That's how they get sneak previews of technology not-yet-released, so that (for example) when it is released the articles will be already written and ready for press.
Maybe the terms of this particular NDA were more restrictive than normal, maybe not. Usually there's a date on which the NDA expires and the info can be released without review (because the company is issuing a press release on that day anyway). But that's typically for upcoming product releases, not visits to R&D labs or the like.
If they don't want a trade secret or confidential material to be reported, don't show it to a bunch of reporters.
Well, they didn't show it to anyone who didn't want to sign the NDA, so what's the big deal? It's up to each individual reporter to decide whether getting that kind of deep background info is worth the restrictions. At least AMD made the offer, giving the choice to the reporters.
-- Alastair
Did you even read the fucking summary? The journalist refused the NDA. The journalist reported that AMD uses abusive NDAs. AMD denies the journalist's claim. Proof of the claim is found.
After all, I am strangely colored.
If I went on any "5-star, all-expense paid trip to Singapore" at a vendor's expense I'm going to be--and I would deserve to be--fired in less time than it took me to write this note.
Assuming you are a full-time journalist, then you would be working at the last media outlet with any scruples whatsoever. You also probably get few, if any, product reviews, first-in-line product announcements too because your media would be considered too independent to guarantee a good review.
Why is this an issue to anyone? This is a simple matter of Legal doing their usual cover-all-bases NDA. Furthermore, all mainstream American media (I don't know about anywhere else) long ago abandoned the notion that they are some kind of moderating influence. e.g. the whole woodward/bernstein feet-on-the-street style reporting is a myth. What's left are a few long ago marginalized media entities attempting to cover stories with no cooperation from the story generators. Hardly a recipe for success in the media market.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
So what you're saying is that a reporter should be completely in the dark and uninformed about everything that to learn a lot and only be able to discuss some of it? About issues that are not public safety, corruption, or illegal?
Out of curiosity where do you stand on shield laws that reporters are saying they need to protect confidential sources? I mean the source is part of the story, any failure to report on the source would be completely contrary to the entire basis under which the free press operates.
EXACTLY.
The important point here is how AMD has poisoned the well with this action.
Just how much (larger) a gain of salt will I have to take anything I read about their new stuff? I know much of tech media are barely more than shills for those they write about, but this (the initial NDA he refused to sign) goes quite a bit beyond anything I can remember hearing for the media.
No K10 chips for me this year or next, I would say....
Most companies actually control reviews hmm PCWorld anyone about Vista or how about other reviews they are all bias actually But how is this a NDA scandal?
If the NDA is insane, don't sign it. This sounds like AMD want to filter all reviews. Certainly some will wait and just review it with no strings.
Sounds like we get the AMD official reviews monday, and the real reviews after you can buy it.
The reporters want to see it, AMD needs to keep certain things trade secrets. As a compromise, they let the reporters in with an NDA, which lets them say "No, you can't write about that because we don't want that info getting out." AMD gets publicity, the journalists get a story, and everyone's happy. If you don't want the story, don't sign the NDA, and write an article about how "evil" AMD is for protecting it's interests. Everyone wins.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
The journalist did and frankly, so do I. Sure, AMD can refuse to show the journalist anything at all but that is still better than reading an article from a seemingly independent journalist who was effectively made a puppet of AMD through an overreaching NDA. An NDA can be okay but this one is excessive since it compromises the journalist's independence.
What? What on earth keeps that "journalist" from starting the article with the words "I signed an NDA, so take what I write with a grain of salt" or whatever?
And NDAs simply say that you can't reveal company secrets. Heck, I had to sign NDAs for job interviews, because I had to know deep IP to even evaluate whether I wanted to work somewhere. Methinks this is an extremely green boy directly out of journalism school who's simply never been inside a tech company. You think Intel (or Maxim or Samsung or whatever chipmaker) will just let you publish stories with details of their secret processes?
If I was AMD, I'd say "sure, you journalists can have a look around, but I'd like to see what you print beforehand simply to make sure you don't inadvertently publish something that is actually not supposed to be public knowledge". That clueless "Thai journalist" wouldn't know tech processes, so he wouldn't know what part of what he's seeing is common knowledge and what part is the secret economic engine behind AMDs success.
So where's the "scandal" here? What part of "large company doesn't want its trade secrets publicly revealed" is somehow immoral or illegal or unethical or whatever? The alternative is for AMD to close its doors entirely, and then folks would be howling about "evil secrecy".
We're all born with nothing.
If you die in debt, you're ahead.
Yes, that's the point -- it's one thing to say "hey', we're going to show you some stuff so that you can do your own research and thinking and be ready to publish whatever you like on July 9th when we release the information to the public".
It's quite another to say "We're going to give you a tour, and by taking the tour you agree to let us review and edit every article you write for the next 5 years that might in some way contain information we could possibly construe as confidential".
The first is essentially a professional courtesy that is advantageous to both sides as well as customers. The latter is just a ridiculous overreach that any journalist (which of course excludes most trade rag writers) would laugh at and reject out of hand.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
You'll have to rewrite your question in English since I have no idea what you're trying to say. Seriously, try to diagram your first sentence and tell me if it doesn't eventually become a circle.
Shield laws don't state that reporters HAVE to protect sources, the laws state that reporters MAY protect sources if they choose to do so. The free press operates on the basis that reporters should be able to write what they feel is newsworthy, without having to ask permission from anyone but their editor or the guy who owns the printing press.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
So you imagine that a reporter who gets a rare sneak-peek into an Intel R&D lab can write whatever e wants without signing an NDA? I think you're ignorant of both, high-tech AND journalism.
We're all born with nothing.
If you die in debt, you're ahead.
Replace "that" with "than" or "rather than".
Your free press certainly doesn't sound any freer than what AMD is suggesting.
Sorry, still doesn't make an sense.
I'm not sure how you think that AMD requiring reporters to submit stories for approval fits into my free press. Is AMD the editor or the publisher?
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Excuse me, but when there is no advertisement (or only marginally) involved, and the medium is paid by the people who actually read the stuff, yeah, you get pretty independent media.
Are you really saying "free speech never existed, nothing to see here, please move along!" ...?
"Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
Never before, till today, has a company managed to give itself the most spectacular colossal negative (press) space wedgie. With this sort of mentality, is it a wonder intel is eating their lunch?
I understand that Slashdot readers often don't read the article about which they are commenting. But, in this case, you didn't read the comment on which you are commenting.
The ENTIRE issue, emphasized in bold in my comment is that reporters arrived in Singapore after being told they would not have to sign the extreme NDA that was originally submitted to them. Then, on the second day, when they were in a foreign city and it would be much more difficult to say no, they were asked to sign the original NDA, again.
As someone from AMD said, they should not have done that. It is my guess that the hassle was probably caused by people at AMD who have very little technical knowledge, because if they had technical knowledge they would have understood enough not to do something so stupid.
I think that's the first time I've ever laughed out loud at Slashdot. xD
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
I don't think the signers of this NDA are part (or should be part) of such groups, nor is it appropriate to ask - if it's harmful to society, we can judge AMD to be wrong (by that standard). Why is it a problem to expect ethical behaviour of business, and do things from shame to sue them when they go beyond that? Just as individuals who put their interests too far above those of society receive criticism, companies should get the same. Not everything needs to involve the law - we do have that full range of things from shame to the law to apply, depending on circumstance and how willing they are to be shaped towards less damaging behaviour. We shouldn't give them a blank cheque just because they're a business though.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
WTF, your rights by the Constitution are restrictions on government, not on private entities. You can sign all your rights away except your life or liberty (slavery for instance).
(FTFA) The event was in Singapore. Don't assume that any Constitution they may have operates in the same was as the one in the USA does.
The whores get mad when the sluts give it away for free.
What? What on earth keeps that "journalist" from starting the article with the words "I signed an NDA, so take what I write with a grain of salt" or whatever?
Maybe there's a clause in the non-disclosure agreement where you agree not to disclose that you signed a non-disclosure agreement.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
How the bloody hell is a story about a company wanting to control the marketing of it's own products news?
The biggest mistake is AMD has even invited this guy there, he is such a no-brainer, and it is a pain to follow his logic.
1. Before you accept a all expense paid invitation, you ought to understand there must be some unspoken "kindness" needed from you. If you accept it, then you don't reciprocate, you are cheap. But to accept it, and still wanted to claim you want to fiercely free, are you born yesterday?
2. I wanted to commend some more but decided to cut short. It make me stupid to waste time commenting on his stupidity. Read his own words and judge how insane he is: "Not only would the logistics of tracking down and returning just under a hundred thousand copies of the Bangkok Post five years after it was published be impossible,.."
I shall be amaze to see if Bangkok Post still keep him, now he has such a public display on his stupidity.
The NDA agreement is only paraphrased in this blog entry. Probably the original NDA had extensive definition of what they call "confidential" and what need to be pre-approved.
Just think about this a few moment :
- If the original NDA was made to allow AMD to filter bad reviews, what would the result be ?
On launch day, the market is flooded with the new product, while the NDA press is flooded with positive review. Then suddenly a couple of day laters (the time it'll take to buy the product by their own means and make independent tests on it), any media that didn't sign the NDA, will start publishing titles like : "Looks like after, latest AMD isn't as good as touted to be. See our extensive tests" and "NDA scandal : AMD has made the press to lie for launch-day reviews".
What would the results be ?
- AMD will get very bad PR for trying to manipulate the press.
- Any pres outlet that did sign the NDA will lose any reputation of neutrality.
Therefore, probably censoring bad reviews wasn't AMD's main target because they won't be able to stop all the bad press anyway, only to slow it down for the first few days until the "REAL independent" press manage to get hold of the product.
---
Now, they could actually use the NDA to try to keep secret some of the development they are planning for the future. That would make much more sense, and that's what a NDA is actually supposed to be about (before some companies tried to turn it into an inefficient PR-censoring tool).
Look at the current situation : AMD's main competitor is Intel. Intel's current marketing strategy is to multiply the number of cores in their processor and, grossly, to keep their old strategy, only substituting "number of Cores" for their current generation of Core chips where they used to say "Number of GHz" for their last NetBurst generation. Whether this will turn out to be a good strategy : that's something only the future will tell us.
But AMD's engineers don't think so. They know they can't outpace Intel in the race for more cores per chip. But they think there's room for more long-term improvement. Thus in the past, they have announced that they're working in adding more stream-processing capabilities to their CPUs. Not only a few extensions like SSE. But more among the lines of full stream-based processors. Like CELL's SPU. Hence their buying of ATI and their plans to produce CPU/GPU hybrids.
Keeping low profile until they can ship an actual product is important to them. If there's too much noise about the details of such future products, it may attract their competitors' attention that "stream processing" is the latest buzzword in the press, and in may reveal too much information about the future processor. That is at risk of both giving the possibility to the competition to announce their own competing production along with statements like "AMD's is reported in the press to only have 'X', our will be better and will have 'Y' too, buy ours instead" and also giving them enough time to develop another solution and outpace AMD on the stream-processing generation of chips.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
...for those of thinking we will finally get FOSS gfx drivers?
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
"WTF, your rights by the Constitution are restrictions on government, not on private entities. You can sign all your rights away except your life or liberty (slavery for instance)."
This probably depends on the country you are in BUT in the US this is incorrect.
See the usury laws for a convent example. You can not sign away rights that are yours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury
You can not sign away your right to vote as another example.
Personally I have gone to these events and have signed manufactures agreements like this before. Why? Because I will probably only write about them once when said products in the events are finally released to the general public. By the time said products are 6 months old they are old news and not worth writing about anymore.
This "fellow" reporter, probably new to the industry is trying to make himself look defiant so publications might take him serious.
Based on this, over the next 5 years, AMD should be expecting anyone who reads "independent" reviews of their technology to suspect that the author may have signed an approval agreement. Since the reading public has no idea which journalists may be forced to have their content vetted by AMD, we are forced to assume that (potentially) ANY review has been whitewashed by AMD. The only way, it seems to me, for journalists to clearly show that they have definately NOT had AMD pre-review their content is for them to be overly critical to show their independence.
Does AMD really want tech writers to go at all AMD product discussions with an aggressive tilt? Surely this is counter-productive to AMD...
Haha, ohh-kayyyy... so what is his big story supposed to be?
AMD EXECS MUM ON PLANS, TRADE SECRETS
Reporters Given No Tour, Told Nothing
Analysts fear the worst
(Singapore) - Reporters were turned away from a courtesy tour of a factory today when they valiantly refused to sign boilerplate contracts. No further information was given, but some analysts speculate a terrible mystery could be behind it all, with disaster, failure, and moral horror in the offing.
"I was expecting to see some big machines at least," said Tran Minh, reporter for the Saigon Herald. "Maybe one of those big acid-bath things that they dip the silicon wafers into."
Instead Tran, like other reporters who failed to sign the paper at the front door, was brutally forced to snack on hors d'oerves at the courtesy catering tray in the AMD press office, while being excluded from the factory tour.
Reporters who did sign the papers were allowed into the factory emerged 45 minutes later. Many were smiling and asking questions of the attractive, professionally-dressed tour guide. None, however, would speak to the viciously excluded reporters.
"We asked them if they could tell us what they saw in the factory," said Steven Hau, himself a victim of the brutal AMD exclusion policy. "But they wouldn't say anything. They just said, 'Cool stuff in there' -- I'm certain AMD people have gotten to them. They're part of it now."
AMD executives' complete refusal to disclose information leads many to speculate about the future of the company's manufacturing plans.
"Did you see how I asked them if they had spring rolls on the catering tray earlier, and they didn't answer my question? Well look -- they don't have any spring rolls here. None at all. So a few minutes ago I tried to ask one of the execs some details on AMD's upcoming Barcelona chipset and he wouldn't say anything. He just turned his back and walked away. All I can say is, sell off your AMD stock now."
The sheer amount of information not known by the excluded reporters, who were given no interviews and did not see demos of upcoming products, is staggering, leading some to suspect any number of possibilities.
"It could be bad or it could be even worse," said one reporter. "Whatever they've got in there -- it can't be good. Not good enough to sign a paper, anyway."
Breakfast served all day!
I believe that the concern is that AMD could use the NDA to prevent the press from writing negative articles. The purpose of an NDA should be to protect trade secrets.
You can fix anything with duct tape and sticks.
Registered Linux User #449434
As already explained in other posts, the point is that AMD can use this NDA to veto any negative press. That's unethical and the journalist correctly refused to sign the agreement.
He's on the front page of one of the biggest web sites in the tech world. Where are the stories from the other "reporters"?
this falls in the "any publicity is good publicity" category.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
'or' is just a way to factor a sentence much like you would factor an equation. 'publish or used in marketing' can be split into two ideas, 'published in marketing' and 'used in marketing'. 'published in marketing' makes no sense while 'used in marketing' does and additionally implies additional actions beyond publishing.
Because 'publish in marketing' does not make sense, 'used' must be bound to 'in marketing' and the meaning of the phrase becomes 'publish' OR 'used in marketing'.
What about their precious bodily fluids ? Did they protect their precious bodily fluids ?
An NDA by a chipmaker is considered a scandal? Really? Watergate; that was a scandal! My mother smoking my stash in high-school while I was in class? THAT was a (horribly ironic) scandal! But this? This isn't a scandal. It's barely news. And, no, it does not, in any way, impinge your constitutional right. If you don't believe look it up on the...wait for it...'Net somewhere.
Oh, for the days when sig's didn't have to be cute...hey, wait a sec.
Intel has had quad-core processors since November 2006, 10 months ago! Why would AMD need to keep Barcelona's release details a secret, when every single AMD fan has been waiting over a year for this damned thing ? It's hardly a secret, as they've already told almost everything to the press in August, when they were desperately trying to counter the mass exodus that resulted from Intel's staggering July price drop.
As a former AMD "fanboy", I'm not impressed. Quad-FX is embarrassing, and Barcelona is lackluster. Meanwhile Intel has been scaling their Core 2 Extreme to 3 ghz and still has good headroom on existing designs. Barcelona needs to start way higher than 2.0ghz to turn any heads, as people will just stick with the cheaper Opteron until the cost-per-GFLOP becomes more competitive.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
There are a number of things going on here that may be going on. It is impossible to really know based on the article, but EVERYONE knows the culture gap between East Asia and "The West" means that some things may be needed there that would not be needed here.
If you were really concerned about information getting out, wouldn't YOU want to make sure any stories written be free of NDA violating information? This isn't censorship as much as security.
Yes, I'm sure AMD is very concerned about AMD's security and press image. But that's not a reporter's problem, and trying to make it so is what is unprofessional, disrespectful, and overreaching about what we've heard.
If I were REALLY CONCERNED about information getting out, I wouldn't share it with anyone who didn't need to know it. Certainly not with a reporter, whose very job it is to get information out.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
They do usually say that, yes. However, if you fail to neglect to say who you signed the NDA with, who's to say you're talking about the same one? "Oh, the one I was talking about was with *another* company. I can't tell you who, though, because I'm bound by an NDA."
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
If a vendor wants me to sign a NDA I tell them straight out that a NDA simply means that a product is vapourware and therefore I'm not interested anymore and will go somewhere else thanks.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
AMD chips are almost impossible to find in Thailand, does this mean they will continue to be impossible to find?
I don't want Microsoft to have even the slightest chance of being able to declare war.
Not that your congress has used that power since the '40s.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
But he didn't sign it - "a Thai journalist walked out ... over a controversial NDA"
Big deal. I'm bored now. Can this non-controversial supposed NDA controversy be any less boring?
Who is the president of the controversy deciding committee? I demand a seat!
Unless AMD explicitly stated, "everything you see here is confidential" or, "this particular thing is confidential", the NDA has no force. NDAs are evil and stupid, and this one takes the cake for being so vague, but the conclusion the author then jumps to is worse.
Right. AMD is going to sue papers for unfavorable reviews and it's all based on that flimsy NDA.
Come on, this is the classic bane of NDAs - besides, what company (let alone AMD) would expect all press returned to it? Then again, they might be getting into the recycling biz...
Uh no, you're stupid. If you don't want a reporter to publish confidential information, you don't give it to them. If they dig it up on their own, oh well, too bad so sad, that's life in the free world. I sure wonder about all these /. retards who are so extremely pro-business. Why? What's in it for you? How do you benefit from a free press being muzzled and controlled?
we will end no whine before its time
You didn't read the article, did you. What do you get out of bending over for ridiculous antics like "in five years we can recall everything you ever wrote"?
we will end no whine before its time
I hope I'm not the only one who sees that there no information here. The NDA is not quoted, and I have signed plenty of NDAs with very similar content. For instance, we have an agreement right now that says basically that we can't publish any articles without prior consent of AMD. It is immediately preceded by "If you wish to receive marketing development funds..." I would think that a journalist would be a bit more objective when looking into this, or maybe it's just one media outlet trying to protect another. To me, this simply reads: "Journalist attends AMD press conference and refuses to sign standard NDA agreement, walks out after realizing he's not allowed to publish any of what he's seen, and writes a sensationalistic article to drum up press instead of a legitimate technology piece."
It is amazing you are the only one that sees the issues surrounding cases like these.
Most of the posts here entirely miss the point that just because a private entity exists, does not give it the right to break our laws by signing something on paper.
These same people that marked me down as a Troll will now no doubt, bitch moan and complain they cannot get Wireless drivers for their Linux machines!
Kiss my open source code.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
A little off topic, but I did the same thing with an invention assignment agreement when I got hired at a place last year. They sent it to me in .doc format, so I read through it and "amended" parts that I thought were unfair. I printed it and gave it to them, and I doubt they ever bothered reading through it.
I only made reasonable changes, but I could have put that the agreement was only valid if my boss ignited a live chicken every time I said the word "salmon" while in the office. They would still just look for my signature, sign the line below it, and be done with it all.
If AMD wants to promote a ridiculously binding NDA, it's their privilege. If Journalist A wants to walk out instead of agreeing to said NDA, that is HIS privilege. Clearly, AMD thinks the greater harm is in the unplanned release of proprietary company information, compared to the goodwill that might accrue by more open communication. But "scandal"? Come on, /. -- leave the yellow journalism to W.R. Hearst.
You're being facetious. I'm not going to get into the legal qualifications about whom the NDA is binding. AMD invited journalists to review their products. They were chosen for the virtue of them being journalists. And then basically told them that they could not act as journalists, but more as an extension of their corporate marketing department. That NDA basically put all editorial control into AMD's hands. My contention is that there are two laws battling here, the right of the corporation to bind someone with agreements and the right of unfettered information, which we most of the time refer to as freedom of speech. The journalist did the right thing- he refused to participate and he revealed the inappropriate behavior of one of our corporate citizens.
http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
If I asked you to tour my plant, but when you arrived I stuck you in a crate and said it was a new subdivision of an existing plant would that be ok?
AMD basically wasted this guy's time by restricting his right to publish and asking him to sign away his right to publish anti-AMD information in the future.
That's bullocks, he's making a good point that journalists shouldn't waste their time with this company if it's going to be worse than not talking to them at all.