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.'"

Comments

Seems to be a non-issue...

[Reemi]

unfortunately, there is not verbatim copy of the NDA, only a section that seems to paraphrase.

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_data 006.php

Re:another example

[djmurdoch]

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).

Wrong Scandal

[sjvn]

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

Re:Wrong Scandal

[Angostura]

When I was a tech journalist, by standard procedure was to read the NDAs and cross out the most egregious clauses, sign it and return. If I was feeling particularly charitable, I would point out the parts that I had deleted. Their an agreement. You are within your rights to amend before signing.

Re:Wrong Scandal

[PCM2]

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.

Hear, hear. I've worked for a couple of different publications in the trade press and we were generally only allowed to accept gifts from vendors totaling in the realm of about $20. Attending an industry meet-n-greet held at a fancy restaurant was often enough to set fingers wagging.

Re:Wrong Scandal

[Angostura]

You can see why I am no-longer a journalist. I can't even get the distinction between 'their' and 'they're' correct. Excuse me why I go and beat myself about the head with a large Chambers 20th Century dictionary.

Re:another example

[MindStalker]

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.

No technical knowledge? Don't work in tech company

[Futurepower(R)]

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.

Re:If the journalist was stupid enough to sign it.

[quanticle]

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.

Back to school for you!

[ColdWetDog]

You are also forgetting the NDA is excluding basic human rights organized by the constitution, one of which is the freedom of the press.

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.

That's the NDA process for you

[Helmholtz Coil]

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.

So, they protect their confidential information?

[bluefoxlucid]

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.

Re:another example

[NMerriam]

went home without any story at all.

???? 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.

Re:If the journalist was stupid enough to sign it.

[NMerriam]

Usually there's a date on which the NDA expires and the info can be released without review

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.

Re:If the journalist was stupid enough to sign it.

[Hatta]

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.

Re:If the journalist was stupid enough to sign it.

[Danse]

Did you even read the fscking story? The NDA said any materials used in marketing had to be cleared first. There is absolutly NOTHING in there about attempting to censor news stories, opinion pieces, or anything else. Are you illiterate or what? This is a quote from the story (emphasis mine):

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. Notice the difference between that and what you said? So the journalist would have to get approval from AMD before he publishes any story about anything that AMD considers confidential. What that covers is unclear, but could easily be construed to mean anything at all about the factory tour, and AMD is the one that makes the determination.