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.'"
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...
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
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.
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.
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
You, sir, are dumber than a retard's nutsack. The issue isn't the NDA, it's that AMD are claiming de facto editorial rights over the publications. They're not stifling all information; you will see articles, but the only ones you'll be allowed to see are positive ones. Do you get that? Once you agree to this NDA, if it turns out that the product sucks, then you're not allowed to print that it sucks, and you're not even allowed to print that you're not allowed to print that it sucks. If you don't want an empty front page, then you have to print "OMFG AMD is teh roxorzz!!!111!". Is that clear enough for you yet?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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?
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.
???? 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
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....
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.