Switch Theme:

GW NDA Leak  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






 Kanluwen wrote:
Curious if part of this is a reaction to things like FLG, who sell mats that just so happen to always be in the size that purportedly they pushed for with GW in playtesting...


Um no.
It's pretty well known the reason they got scaled down is it's 4 killteam boards put together.

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Germany

If Spikeybits told me the sky is blue and grass is green I would double-check anyway.

"Tabletop games are the only setting when a body is made more horrifying for NOT being chopped into smaller pieces."
- Jiado 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

drbored wrote:

Google the definition of a "Restricted Customer", it doesn't mean what people think it means.


1: Definitions and Interpretations: 'Restricted Customer: a person who is, at the effective date, or has been in the previous 12 months, a client or customer, or in the habit of dealing with, GW.


It's right in the contract. What Google says matters not one damn bit.


drbored wrote:

And, again, you're only going to sign this if you think it's a good deal for you and your review business and you want to get free review copies of things. Being SPONSORED also means that on youtube and in online articles, you will likely have a thing in your video/article that says "THIS IS A SPONSORED ARTICLE" or somesuch, which will tell viewers what they need to know in terms of what to expect from that video/article.


This is being shoved on people who are not sponsored, but rather, anyone who gets an advance review copy.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/23 22:13:42



Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Gathering the Informations.

Where exactly do you think people are getting advance review copies from?

Spoiler:
It isn't(or shouldn't be!) retailers.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




This isn't a standard NDA. There are a number weird things in here that push the envelope and are likely legally unenforceable, particularly in sections 4 and 6. Read literally, this would allow GW to get damages from anyone who signed the agreement who then gave a bad review to a GW product and said people shouldn't buy it. It would also allow GW to decide what is or is not confusing use under 4.1.6 and then get damages for that as well, without any showing of negligence.

The basic issue is that "Restricted Customer" is defined in a ridiculously broad way here, to be any customer of GW's, regardless of that customer's relationship to the signer of the document. What that term is supposed to actually mean is someone the signer had a personal relationship with - in other words, if you work in GW sales and you build up a relationship with a vendor, and then after you leave GW you try to get that vendor to stop buying from GW and start buying from some rival instead. But that's not what this document actually says, it purports to say that you cannot do anything that would make any GW customer buy less from GW, regardless of whether you have any personal relationship with them cultivated through your GW employment. Which is absurd.

This problem extends to basically the whole document - they are overreaching almost everywhere in major ways. It's like someone took a standard NDA and then sent it to the Eye of Terror to be warped into something that still nominally resembles a NDA until you look more closely, and realize with horror that what you thought was a normal NDA is something all-together more sinister.

If that's a real legal document GW is trying to get people to sign, absolutely nobody should be signing it under any circumstances, at least not without very careful consultation with a lawyer. It's likely not legally enforceable, but bankrupting yourself fighting an unenforceable agreement is a Pyrrhic victory.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/23 22:24:44


 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
If Spikeybits told me the sky is blue and grass is green I would double-check anyway.


http://natfka.blogspot.com/2021/09/want-to-know-what-gw-nda-looks-like.html

I'm sure was things go on, more and more sources will have articles on it.


Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in gb
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller





Cymru

Moving past if it’s real or not

No one knows the source or the intended recipient of this NDA right?

I’ve seen people say and assume it’s for content creators & reviews but do we have any confirmation it’s that? And this isn’t the NDA for the printing company or the hamster that does the proof reading

My P&M Shenanigans (40k mostly atm)

Diary of a Inquisitor (Other Sci fi in 40k fluff and Pics)
 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





So yet another thing that seems to be getting taken out of context or misconstrued in order to try and make GW look bad regardless of the facts? Seems like pretty standard stuff - you enter into a deal with a company, of course you shouldn't then be trying to take away their customers or unfairly use that to your advantage.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/23 22:47:23


 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






Different places all taking the same source doesn't mean anything in terms of validity. Some people who've worked with GW before have said its not the real NDA they've signed before including AoSCoach, NornQueenAlexis, and 2+Tough.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Here's what we know:

This is a contract.

Here's what we don't know:

1. Who the intended recipient is
2. Even if we do know the intended recipient, is it anyone we care about
3. Even if it is someone we care about, did they sign it
4. If they signed it, does that matter
5. If it somehow matters, that was the signer's choice

If YOU receive this contract, it's up to you whether you sign it or not considering all the other things that may be going on. You can call it draconian, unusual, anything you want, but so far the info I've heard from actual lawyers is "this is normal" and from other people that have signed other NDAs is "this is normal"

Seems like the only people that are really complaining are people that don't work in law, contracts, or NDAs and don't understand the situation at all. In other words, none of the opinions here matter.

We're talking about something that is a personal or business decision between GW and whoever the intended recipient is. If GW is somehow 'FORCING' this on other review channels (which they can't), then here's what happens:

Channels like GMG and a few other places no longer get free copies of GW's stuff to review. Then, they can buy their own copies and say whatever they want.

THAT'S THE ONLY RESULT THAT COMES OUT OF THIS.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/23 22:49:36


 
   
Made in us
Potent Grey Knight Librarian





Fort Worth, TX

It seems a lot of people have forgotten the Chapterhouse Studios case and all of the things GW tried to pull during that one.

"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me."
- Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




drbored wrote:


If YOU receive this contract, it's up to you whether you sign it or not considering all the other things that may be going on. You can call it draconian, unusual, anything you want, but so far the info I've heard from actual lawyers is "this is normal" and from other people that have signed other NDAs is "this is normal"

Seems like the only people that are really complaining are people that don't work in law, contracts, or NDAs and don't understand the situation at all. In other words, none of the opinions here matter.


It's not normal, and any lawyer telling you it is normal is a lawyer you shouldn't be using as a lawyer because they either don't know what they're talking about or they didn't bother to read it carefully. That definition of "Restricted Customer" is absolutely not normal, as you yourself highlighted. Signing a document saying you agree to indemnify GW, with or without any fault on your part, for any breach of a set of vaguely defined covenants that depend on GW's own judgment, is not normal. In fact, no fault indemnity it is so far from normal that many jurisdictions will declare it per se unenforceable as a violation of public policy. Any lawyer who tells you either of these things is normal is not a good lawyer.

It is ironic that you are telling other people they don't know what they're talking about when you evidently are not very well informed yourself.

Honestly, this is so far from normal that I question whether it's a real legal document. If this is what GW's legal department is coming up with, they're either incompetent or treading perilously close to getting themselves into trouble in an attempt to deliver on their clients' demands.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/09/23 23:16:29


 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





 Tannhauser42 wrote:
It seems a lot of people have forgotten the Chapterhouse Studios case and all of the things GW tried to pull during that one.


And it seems every time something happens no matter how significant, some people have already decided that GW are always in the wrong no matter what, using things like the Chapterhouse studio case (even though they were actually determined to be right on several points there) from close to a decade ago along with hyperbole and misconstruing aspects to claim "GW bad!" regardless, rather than judging things based on how they are now and what the facts of the situation here are. This is the 3rd situation where this has happened recently.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/09/23 23:32:40


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





yukishiro1 wrote:
drbored wrote:


If YOU receive this contract, it's up to you whether you sign it or not considering all the other things that may be going on. You can call it draconian, unusual, anything you want, but so far the info I've heard from actual lawyers is "this is normal" and from other people that have signed other NDAs is "this is normal"

Seems like the only people that are really complaining are people that don't work in law, contracts, or NDAs and don't understand the situation at all. In other words, none of the opinions here matter.


It's not normal, and any lawyer telling you it is normal is a lawyer you shouldn't be using as a lawyer because they either don't know what they're talking about or they didn't bother to read it carefully. That definition of "Restricted Customer" is absolutely not normal, as you yourself highlighted. Signing a document saying you agree to indemnify GW, with or without any fault on your part, for any breach of a set of vaguely defined covenants that depend on GW's own judgment, is not normal. In fact, no fault indemnity it is so far from normal that many jurisdictions will declare it per se unenforceable as a violation of public policy. Any lawyer who tells you either of these things is normal is not a good lawyer.

It is ironic that you are telling other people they don't know what they're talking about when you evidently are not very well informed yourself.

Honestly, this is so far from normal that I question whether it's a real legal document. If this is what GW's legal department is coming up with, they're either incompetent or treading perilously close to getting themselves into trouble in an attempt to deliver on their clients' demands.


We can play the 'I know more than you' game all day.

At the end of the day here's what happens:

GW sends you this contract. You and your lawyer decide, considering everything you've been given, "Hey, this isn't very normal." You redline the contract and send it back.

GW then either decides to rewrite the contract, abide by your adjustments, or cease proceeding on the activation of the contract and whatever other contracts are involved.

If they rewrite the contract, yay! You get more favorable circumstances.
If they abide by your adjustments, yay! You get more favorable circumstances.
If they decide to stop working with you, yay! You can continue doing what you were doing.

If you decide to sign the contract as is, yay! You then get to work with GW on whatever sponsorship deal this contract is referring to, and you abide by the contract.
If that's good for your business or whatever, then, great! If it's not, you're not likely to sign it at all.

So, yes, let's just put aside the pedantic bull and focus on what matters: None of us received this contract. Nobody in this forum has any clue what this is referring to. The intended recipient leaked this likely to get a second opinion on it and it got out of hand, OR, and here's a possibility, this was COMPLETELY FABRICATED to push more of the "GW is Bad" narrative floating around. If that's the case, this is weak, due to the aforementioned results.

If you want to be mad about the language in this contract that wasn't meant for you and you don't have to sign, I guess that's your prerogative.

Considering how much we don't know, and that none of us are experts on the issue, I think we just close this topic and put it to rest.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/23 23:28:33


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I don't know how that responds to what I wrote. You said it was standard according to what you had "been told." I pointed out in detail how it was not only not standard, but a serious departure from what is standard. You responded by writing a bunch of irrelevant stuff about how you can choose not to sign the contract. That doesn't address the issue of the contract language being a quite radical departure from what is standard in a NDA, to the point where portions of it are likely void for violating public policy.

If you don't want to participate in the topic further, feel free not to. There's no reason other people need to stop discussing it just because you don't think it's a useful discussion or don't like the way the discussion has gone, however.
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





yukishiro1 wrote:
drbored wrote:


If YOU receive this contract, it's up to you whether you sign it or not considering all the other things that may be going on. You can call it draconian, unusual, anything you want, but so far the info I've heard from actual lawyers is "this is normal" and from other people that have signed other NDAs is "this is normal"

Seems like the only people that are really complaining are people that don't work in law, contracts, or NDAs and don't understand the situation at all. In other words, none of the opinions here matter.


It's not normal, and any lawyer telling you it is normal is a lawyer you shouldn't be using as a lawyer because they either don't know what they're talking about or they didn't bother to read it carefully. That definition of "Restricted Customer" is absolutely not normal, as you yourself highlighted. Signing a document saying you agree to indemnify GW, with or without any fault on your part, for any breach of a set of vaguely defined covenants that depend on GW's own judgment, is not normal. In fact, no fault indemnity it is so far from normal that many jurisdictions will declare it per se unenforceable as a violation of public policy. Any lawyer who tells you either of these things is normal is not a good lawyer.

It is ironic that you are telling other people they don't know what they're talking about when you evidently are not very well informed yourself.

Honestly, this is so far from normal that I question whether it's a real legal document. If this is what GW's legal department is coming up with, they're either incompetent or treading perilously close to getting themselves into trouble in an attempt to deliver on their clients' demands.


How many NDAs have you signed, and for who?

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't know how that responds to what I wrote. You said it was standard according to what you had "been told." I pointed out in detail how it was not only not standard, but a serious departure from what is standard. You responded by writing a bunch of irrelevant stuff about how you can choose not to sign the contract. That doesn't address the issue of the contract language being a quite radical departure from what is standard in a NDA, to the point where portions of it are likely void for violating public policy.

If you don't want to participate in the topic further, feel free not to. There's no reason other people need to stop discussing it just because you don't think it's a useful discussion or don't like the way the discussion has gone, however.


I've signed similar contracts with video game companies, and all of them have various non-defamation clauses as you see in 4.1.7 and other verbiage that's literally copy-pasted.

Many people assumed, myself included, that this contract was being sent out to review channels like GMG or GooberTown or whatever else, but the fact of the matter is we don't know who the intended recipient is supposed to be. A journalist mentioned that many companies that send review copies don't bother with NDAs or any contracts, because they operate completely on goodwill, and as long as that relationship exists, they will continue to do business for each other.

For all we know, this could be an NDA for a totally different type of contract. A position within GW, an indie game company making a warhammer video game, or any other sort of sponsorship that has nothing to do with whether or not you say good or bad things about GW's miniatures.

My hope is that people will use their heads for about two seconds to consider that maybe the "GW BAD" narrative has gone a little too far, so much so that we're willing to take contracts that don't apply to us, that have very little information, and all pretend to be experts on the situation just so we can feel better about not buying that toy we wanted to buy.

Feel free to keep discussing it, but don't pretend like you know everything about the situation and can condemn GW based on some legalese that wasn't written for you.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




If you ever signed a NDA that allows for no fault indemnity, or a non-compete that defined "Restricted Customer" as anyone who does business with the company, you did something terribly stupid and risky by signing it.

I'm not pretending to know everything. I'm looking at the document and telling you that if it is real, it is an extreme overreach that is probably not even legally enforceable because it goes so far beyond the bounds of what is reasonable. It doesn't really matter who it's for, the no fault indemnity and the definition of Restricted Customer are not appropriate regardless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote:


How many NDAs have you signed, and for who?


What does this have to do with anything?

If I had ever signed an NDA like that, my opinion on NDAs would be per se invalid because only an idiot would sign a document purporting to agree to no fault indemnity for anything that results in any GW customer anywhere in the world buying less GW product than they otherwise would have.

Appeals to authority are logical fallacies. I could tell you my legal qualifications, but it shouldn't make any difference to you one way or another. What's important isn't someone's title (especially on the internet where it may not even be true), it's whether what they're saying is correct or not.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/24 00:18:20


 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

drbored wrote:

I've signed similar contracts with video game companies, and all of them have various non-defamation clauses as you see in 4.1.7 and other verbiage that's literally copy-pasted.

Many people assumed, myself included, that this contract was being sent out to review channels like GMG or GooberTown or whatever else, but the fact of the matter is we don't know who the intended recipient is supposed to be. A journalist mentioned that many companies that send review copies don't bother with NDAs or any contracts, because they operate completely on goodwill, and as long as that relationship exists, they will continue to do business for each other.

For all we know, this could be an NDA for a totally different type of contract. A position within GW, an indie game company making a warhammer video game, or any other sort of sponsorship that has nothing to do with whether or not you say good or bad things about GW's miniatures.

My hope is that people will use their heads for about two seconds to consider that maybe the "GW BAD" narrative has gone a little too far, so much so that we're willing to take contracts that don't apply to us, that have very little information, and all pretend to be experts on the situation just so we can feel better about not buying that toy we wanted to buy.

Feel free to keep discussing it, but don't pretend like you know everything about the situation and can condemn GW based on some legalese that wasn't written for you.


If you know that Brent over at Goobertown Hobbies has stated that these were sent to various reviewers, then your argument is disingenuous at best. So far you've argued with two different people that this is totally normal (it's not) that the words don't mean what the contract expressly defines them as (they do) and that we can't possibly know what they actually mean because we don't know who's gotten one (we know at least a few of them) .

Frankly, De Nile should remain a river in Egypt.

 JoeRugby wrote:
Moving past if it’s real or not

No one knows the source or the intended recipient of this NDA right?

I’ve seen people say and assume it’s for content creators & reviews but do we have any confirmation it’s that? And this isn’t the NDA for the printing company or the hamster that does the proof reading


It was leaked by miscast, so I'm guessing it's either his, or someone he knows. It was confirmed by Brent over at Goobertown Hobbies that several youtube channels have received this or something similar.


Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





yukishiro1 wrote:
If you ever signed a NDA that allows for no fault indemnity, or a non-compete that defined "Restricted Customer" as anyone who does business with the company, you did something terribly stupid and risky by signing it.

I'm not pretending to know everything. I'm looking at the document and telling you that if it is real, it is an extreme overreach that is probably not even legally enforceable because it goes so far beyond the bounds of what is reasonable. It doesn't really matter who it's for, the no fault indemnity and the definition of Restricted Customer are not appropriate regardless.


Appropriate to who? To what position? Who does this contract apply to? What sponsorship does it reference? Is it the final form of this contract? Who is expected to sign it? What benefits could they be getting as a result of signing this contract?

Without answers to those questions, you're railing against nothing.

Quote from above because I'm not savvy with this forum:

"If you know that Brent over at Goobertown Hobbies has stated that these were sent to various reviewers, then your argument is disingenuous at best. So far you've argued with two different people that this is totally normal (it's not) that the words don't mean what the contract expressly defines them as (they do) and that we can't possibly know what they actually mean because we don't know who's gotten one (we know at least a few of them) .

Frankly, De Nile should remain a river in Egypt."

Then it's up to Goobertown and other review channels whether or not they want to sign this sort of contract. If they don't want to, that's up to them, period. What will happen? They will stop receiving free stuff? Did Brent actually receive this or is he getting this from other people that have different situations than he does?

Again, as I said before, it seems like people are, at best, upset at not being able to get free stuff and still poop on it (which, due to there not being a non-disparage clause, isn't even the case).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/24 00:22:06


 
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





yukishiro1 wrote:
If you ever signed a NDA that allows for no fault indemnity, or a non-compete that defined "Restricted Customer" as anyone who does business with the company, you did something terribly stupid and risky by signing it.

I'm not pretending to know everything. I'm looking at the document and telling you that if it is real, it is an extreme overreach that is probably not even legally enforceable because it goes so far beyond the bounds of what is reasonable. It doesn't really matter who it's for, the no fault indemnity and the definition of Restricted Customer are not appropriate regardless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote:


How many NDAs have you signed, and for who?


What does this have to do with anything?

If I had ever signed an NDA like that, my opinion on NDAs would be per se invalid because only an idiot would sign a document purporting to agree to no fault indemnity for anything that results in any GW customer anywhere in the world buying less GW product than they otherwise would have.

Appeals to authority are logical fallacies. I could tell you my legal qualifications, but it shouldn't make any difference to you one way or another. What's important isn't someone's title (especially on the internet where it may not even be true), it's whether what they're saying is correct or not.


if you've never signed a NDA, never seen one, and are not a laywer, maybe just MAYBE you should stop pretending to be an expert?

are there any english busniess lawyers here who can give a professional opinion on thi contract? what would it be used for? is it enforceable? etc?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/24 00:21:54


Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






And it was rebuked by several others as a hoax. One person saying X people said they got the document, doesn't mean jack. I'd also like to point out that many channels/people GW has sent review copies to in the past have been critical of GW systems and continue to do so if/when it's neccessary. So I'm going to believe that it's all nonsense and just another attempt by someone to stir the pot of anti-GW sentiment.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't know how that responds to what I wrote. You said it was standard according to what you had "been told." I pointed out in detail how it was not only not standard, but a serious departure from what is standard. You responded by writing a bunch of irrelevant stuff about how you can choose not to sign the contract. That doesn't address the issue of the contract language being a quite radical departure from what is standard in a NDA, to the point where portions of it are likely void for violating public policy.

If you don't want to participate in the topic further, feel free not to. There's no reason other people need to stop discussing it just because you don't think it's a useful discussion or don't like the way the discussion has gone, however.


Just what do you think a non-compete and non-Solicitation clause is for if you believe that stopping them using the information in a negative way to affect GWs business or to gain some sort of advantage isn't standard? Someone who signs this would be given information that could potentially be used to affect GWs business in various ways such as possibly diverting customers and/or others away, even without them actually revealing that information to anyone.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

yukishiro1 wrote:
This isn't a standard NDA.


There is no such thing as a standard NDA. Every company will have their own terms, and they will often be customized to an individual relationship.

yukishiro1 wrote:
There are a number weird things in here that push the envelope and are likely legally unenforceable, particularly in sections 4 and 6. Read literally, this would allow GW to get damages from anyone who signed the agreement who then gave a bad review to a GW product and said people shouldn't buy it. It would also allow GW to decide what is or is not confusing use under 4.1.6 and then get damages for that as well, without any showing of negligence.


4 deals with non-competition. 6 deals with what happens if you break confidentiality.

6 is absolutely enforceable, similar language appears in a lot of contracts.

What specifically do you claim is illegal about 4? Nothing about this section appears to be questionable.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The basic issue is that "Restricted Customer" is defined in a ridiculously broad way here, to be any customer of GW's, regardless of that customer's relationship to the signer of the document. What that term is supposed to actually mean is someone the signer had a personal relationship with - in other words, if you work in GW sales and you build up a relationship with a vendor, and then after you leave GW you try to get that vendor to stop buying from GW and start buying from some rival instead. But that's not what this document actually says, it purports to say that you cannot do anything that would make any GW customer buy less from GW, regardless of whether you have any personal relationship with them cultivated through your GW employment. Which is absurd.


Restricted Customer means anyone GW does business with. Of course that is broad.

Again, similar terms appear in a lot of contracts. The only person claiming there's a problem with this is you.

yukishiro1 wrote:
This problem extends to basically the whole document - they are overreaching almost everywhere in major ways. It's like someone took a standard NDA and then sent it to the Eye of Terror to be warped into something that still nominally resembles a NDA until you look more closely, and realize with horror that what you thought was a normal NDA is something all-together more sinister.

If that's a real legal document GW is trying to get people to sign, absolutely nobody should be signing it under any circumstances, at least not without very careful consultation with a lawyer. It's likely not legally enforceable, but bankrupting yourself fighting an unenforceable agreement is a Pyrrhic victory.


These observations are baseless and clearly come from someone with no experience dealing with businesses. You're making stuff up to complain about.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







This thread is way more hilarious than I imagined "unsolicited legal opinions concerning a legal contract" would be.

   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

BrianDavion wrote:

if you've never signed a NDA, never seen one, and are not a laywer, maybe just MAYBE you should stop pretending to be an expert?


That's not what he said, but thank you for playing. When I worked for the casino, enforcement of the NDA was part of my position, and he's not wrong, this is a really weird NDA. As I said, it's effectively a non-compete agreement masquerading as an NDA, and different from other GW NDAs I've seen, but those were more than a decade ago.

I can say that there are countries that this is unenforceable, but the UK, I'm unsure of.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 techsoldaten wrote:

Again, similar terms appear in a lot of contracts. The only person claiming there's a problem with this is you.


Achem.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/24 00:33:14



Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 BaronIveagh wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

if you've never signed a NDA, never seen one, and are not a laywer, maybe just MAYBE you should stop pretending to be an expert?


That's not what he said, but thank you for playing. When I worked for the casino, enforcement of the NDA was part of my position, and he's not wrong, this is a really weird NDA. As I said, it's effectively a non-compete agreement masquerading as an NDA, and different from other GW NDAs I've seen, but those were more than a decade ago.

I can say that there are countries that this is unenforceable, but the UK, I'm unsure of.



So, again, if you were to get this NDA for some sort of position or deal with GW, I'm sure you would send it to your lawyer to check it over and you two could figure it out.

If Brent or any of the other people have indeed gotten this same contract, I'm sure they would do the same. The thing I'd love to see squashed is this just being another swipe at GW, when it's actually a non-issue.

Edit: What I'm trying to say is where is the real-world issue here? Please explain, because as everyone seems to understand, I know nothing and am not a lawyer, so I'd LOVE if someone could explain, in real-world terms, where the issue is if you do or don't sign this contract.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/24 00:36:37


 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

drbored wrote:
What I'm trying to say is where is the real-world issue here? Please explain, because as everyone seems to understand, I know nothing and am not a lawyer, so I'd LOVE if someone could explain, in real-world terms, where the issue is if you do or don't sign this contract.


Because it requires reviewers to give GW positive reviews, regardless of actual quality. So, effectively, only reviewers contractually obligated to GW can get kits far enough in advance to produce reviews in time for the kits to release.

The extra bit on the end is to effectively expose channels who decide to part ways with GW out of business or face legal liability if they continue to produce videos/etc advertising any product that competes with GW, and we know how broad a pool of products GW consider 'competition', for three years.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/24 00:43:34



Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





 BaronIveagh wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

if you've never signed a NDA, never seen one, and are not a laywer, maybe just MAYBE you should stop pretending to be an expert?

As I said, it's effectively a non-compete agreement masquerading as an NDA
.


Part of the purpose of a non-compete clause is to stop use the of confidential information to gain an advantage or affect the others business. This NDA is for something that obviously involves confidential information that could potentially be used to gain an advantage or affect the others business. So just why is this NDA including a non-compete clause strange to you?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 BaronIveagh wrote:
drbored wrote:
What I'm trying to say is where is the real-world issue here? Please explain, because as everyone seems to understand, I know nothing and am not a lawyer, so I'd LOVE if someone could explain, in real-world terms, where the issue is if you do or don't sign this contract.


Because it requires reviewers to give GW positive reviews, regardless of actual quality. So, effectively, only reviewers contractually obligated to GW can get kits far enough in advance to produce reviews in time for the kits to release.


And, if I understand correctly, under a SPONSORSHIP, you're generally required, or encouraged, to tell your viewers/readers that what you're putting out is SPONSORED, to help people understand that your opinion may be pushed in a certain way.

Sooooooo... It comes down to how you feel about sponsored content.

As to the other half of that, not getting stuff in advance, well, gosh, they'll just have to be patient if they want to vomit all over the stuff that GW wants to release, won't they? Gosh what a terrible dystopia.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/24 00:43:30


 
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: