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 gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






Sorry can I just ask why people are believing this is real? Have you got a verified source? Has anyone come forward and said they've signed this specific document? Have you got a statement from GW saying its the document the company uses?
Or are people blindly jumping on the anti-GW bandwagon because you got bored being angry at Warhammer+?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 techsoldaten wrote:


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 you've written here is simply wrong. 6 deals with breaches of the agreement generally, which would include anything in clause 4. That you haven't even read the document before throwing around accusations that other people don't know what they're talking about is pretty ironic.

Also, if you aren't aware that no fault indemnity is legally questionable when applied to non-compete agreements and violates public policy in many jurisdictions, that severely undermines the credibility of your (evidence-free) assertions that I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.



   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





 Gert wrote:
Sorry can I just ask why people are believing this is real? Have you got a verified source? Has anyone come forward and said they've signed this specific document? Have you got a statement from GW saying its the document the company uses?
Or are people blindly jumping on the anti-GW bandwagon because you got bored being angry at Warhammer+?


I'd assume its the latter as so far I've yet to see anything about this that seems like its actually a problem. Seems like the usual misinterpreting or misconstruing the situation to try and make them look bad.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/24 00:51:53


 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

drbored wrote:

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.


Completely wrong. Do you assume that everyone who's getting one of these is sponsored by GW? Because, from what I can see, not one person who's claimed to have received these is sponsored by GW. These are being received by people who are, or used to be, recipients of prerelease review copies of GW products, and were part of that GW program.


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






This thread is hilarious.

It's like, "my dad could beat up your dad," but with unverifiable positions on legal jurisprudence.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Mentlegen324 wrote:
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.


You don't appear to have read what I wrote. I'm not sure writing it again will be helpful, but on the off chance it is: The problem isn't with the idea of the non-compete, it's with the particulars of how it is worded re: what is covered, and with the claim of the right to no-fault indemnity. If this agreement had a more reasonable definition of Restricted Customer, and if it didn't have a no-fault indemnity clause, it would be closer to something approaching a "normal" or "standard" NDA and non-compete clause agreement. I don't practice in the UK so I don't feel confident saying for sure whether no-fault indemnity is per se against public policy there, but even if it is legal, it's unusual and I would strongly advise against anyone signing any document with such a clause in it.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 BaronIveagh wrote:
drbored wrote:

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.


Completely wrong. Do you assume that everyone who's getting one of these is sponsored by GW? Because, from what I can see, not one person who's claimed to have received these is sponsored by GW. These are being received by people who are, or used to be, recipients of prerelease review copies of GW products, and were part of that GW program.


I don't know whether or not previous reviews have been under sponsorship contracts. Do you?

Review copies also don't count as sponsorship, they are two very different things. What I am pretty certain of is that YouTube, at least, requires you to say if the product you are reviewing is sponsored or if the video is sponsored by a company.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
This thread is hilarious.

It's like, "my dad could beat up your dad," but with unverifiable positions on legal jurisprudence.


Nothing's unverifiable - a little google research will show you I'm right about both the assertions I made re: the definition of Restricted Customer and no-fault indemnity being at a minimum exceptionally and unusually broad, even if you aren't a lawyer yourself - but admittedly it would take effort that most people are probably not willing to go to.
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






As soon as the document is verified then we can have a conversation about its contents. Until then you're discussing nothing.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Gert wrote:
As soon as the document is verified then we can have a conversation about its contents. Until then you're discussing nothing.


This. I'm out. I'll admit I'm out of my depth and nothing I've said should be taken as legal advice. Y'all can continue banging your heads on walls.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Well, no. We're discussing something that may or may not be real. As I've flagged repeatedly here - and I've even questioned whether it's real myself, because I find it hard to believe a competent legal department would sign off on this. It is certainly true that we should allow for the possibility that this isn't real; that doesn't mean we can't discuss what it would mean if it was real.

I mean your own initial post in this thread was "what's the big deal?" You only moved to "this probably isn't real" once someone explained to you what, well, the big deal was.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/24 01:04:19


 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

drbored wrote:

I don't know whether or not previous reviews have been under sponsorship contracts. Do you?

Review copies also don't count as sponsorship, they are two very different things. What I am pretty certain of is that YouTube, at least, requires you to say if the product you are reviewing is sponsored or if the video is sponsored by a company.


You mean the ones that you-tube requires that are missing from previous videos, letting us know that no previous sponsorship was present? [/sarcasm]


Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, no. We're discussing something that may or may not be real. As I've flagged repeatedly here - and I've even questioned whether it's real myself, because I find it hard to believe a competent legal department would sign off on this.


We are talking about GW legal. 'Competent' is stretching things a bit. I used to have a copy of an older GW NDA, but I've since lost it, so hopefully someone posts one to compare this to.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/24 01:06:07



Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, no. We're discussing something that may or may not be real. As I've flagged repeatedly here - and I've even questioned whether it's real myself, because I find it hard to believe a competent legal department would sign off on this.

I mean your own initial post in this thread was "what's the big deal?" You only moved to "this probably isn't real" once someone explained to you what, well, the big deal was.

That, and I then checked other places for similar content, i.e. I didn't just jump on the "GW bad" bandwagon and actually formed an opinion based on more than a single unverified source.
So now my point would be after 3 pages where we're still to see any sort of verification of said document that there is literally nothing to discuss.
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 Gert wrote:

That, and I then checked other places for similar content, i.e. I didn't just jump on the "GW bad" bandwagon and actually formed an opinion based on more than a single unverified source.
So now my point would be after 3 pages where we're still to see any sort of verification of said document that there is literally nothing to discuss.


Gert, given your long history of white knighting for them, you'd claim it's not real even if we had a signed and notarized copy. I'll grant that, like most leaked documents, we do not, as of yet, have solid proof of this one way or another.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/24 01:09:30



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




 Gert wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, no. We're discussing something that may or may not be real. As I've flagged repeatedly here - and I've even questioned whether it's real myself, because I find it hard to believe a competent legal department would sign off on this.

I mean your own initial post in this thread was "what's the big deal?" You only moved to "this probably isn't real" once someone explained to you what, well, the big deal was.

That, and I then checked other places for similar content, i.e. I didn't just jump on the "GW bad" bandwagon and actually formed an opinion based on more than a single unverified source.
So now my point would be after 3 pages where we're still to see any sort of verification of said document that there is literally nothing to discuss.


If you think there's nothing to discuss, why are you still discussing it? Might as well leave the discussion to people who think there is something to discuss, surely?
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

yukishiro1 wrote:

If you think there's nothing to discuss, why are you still discussing it? Might as well leave the discussion to people who think there is something to discuss, surely?


Because every time GW is accused of something or screws up spectacularly, he jumps in and tries to defend them. Frankly, he does it so much I wonder if he's part of their social media team.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/24 01:13:30



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






yukishiro1 wrote:
 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
This thread is hilarious.

It's like, "my dad could beat up your dad," but with unverifiable positions on legal jurisprudence.


Nothing's unverifiable - a little google research will show you I'm right about both the assertions I made re: the definition of Restricted Customer and no-fault indemnity being at a minimum exceptionally and unusually broad, even if you aren't a lawyer yourself - but admittedly it would take effort that most people are probably not willing to go to.


I'm not fully doubting you, but all of the usual GW doormats have already moved the goal posts from trying to defend the actual document to stating they'll only believe it if it's verified, which will never happen. So it's a moot point anyways.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
This thread is hilarious.

It's like, "my dad could beat up your dad," but with unverifiable positions on legal jurisprudence.


Nothing's unverifiable - a little google research will show you I'm right about both the assertions I made re: the definition of Restricted Customer and no-fault indemnity being at a minimum exceptionally and unusually broad, even if you aren't a lawyer yourself - but admittedly it would take effort that most people are probably not willing to go to.


I'm not fully doubting you, but all of the usual GW doormats have already moved the goal posts from trying to defend the actual document to stating they'll only believe it if it's verified, which will never happen. So it's a moot point anyways.


Ah yes, because only the people that hate GW should have their opinions counted. Classic.
   
Made in au
Road-Raging Blood Angel Biker





Assuming it’s even real, looks pretty standard. Read your contracts before you sign, folks.
Spikeybits just drumming up rubbish again. Using that bloke as a reliable source is about as good as listing Wikipedia on your thesis.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




No, it's not pretty standard. We've been over why it isn't pretty standard. It prohibits a wildly greater range of actions than the typical non-compete or NDA due to the way it defines terms, and it purports to hold the signing party responsible for any damages even if they were not at fault. Both these things go well beyond what is normal in these agreements.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





yukishiro1 wrote:
No, it's not pretty standard. We've been over why it isn't pretty standard. It prohibits a wildly greater range of actions than the typical non-compete or NDA due to the way it defines terms, and it purports to hold the signing party responsible for any damages even if they were not at fault. Both these things go well beyond what is normal in these agreements.


Proof?

Show us what a regular NDA would look like to you and include what it applies to.
   
Made in au
Road-Raging Blood Angel Biker





End of the day, don’t like it, don’t sign it. Heck, if all you do is look for stuff like this to whinge about online about Games Workshop, maybe choose a new hobby. I hear gardening is fun.
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





drbored wrote:
 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
This thread is hilarious.

It's like, "my dad could beat up your dad," but with unverifiable positions on legal jurisprudence.


Nothing's unverifiable - a little google research will show you I'm right about both the assertions I made re: the definition of Restricted Customer and no-fault indemnity being at a minimum exceptionally and unusually broad, even if you aren't a lawyer yourself - but admittedly it would take effort that most people are probably not willing to go to.


I'm not fully doubting you, but all of the usual GW doormats have already moved the goal posts from trying to defend the actual document to stating they'll only believe it if it's verified, which will never happen. So it's a moot point anyways.


Ah yes, because only the people that hate GW should have their opinions counted. Classic.


I mean if we let facts reign what would there to be angry about!?

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




drbored wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
No, it's not pretty standard. We've been over why it isn't pretty standard. It prohibits a wildly greater range of actions than the typical non-compete or NDA due to the way it defines terms, and it purports to hold the signing party responsible for any damages even if they were not at fault. Both these things go well beyond what is normal in these agreements.


Proof?

Show us what a regular NDA would look like to you and include what it applies to.


I already told you what a "normal" one of these agreements looks like - indemnity would be tied to some level of fault, typically negligence, and Restricted Customer would be defined as someone who you had some relationship with based on your role with the company, not as all the company's customers whether you had any contact with them or not. It's one thing to say you can't leverage the relationships you created while working for one employer after going to a competitor, it's something quite different to say you can't do anything of any sort that would result in lowering the amount of money any GW customer anywhere in the world spends on GW products.

You yourself literally agreed with me earlier in the thread re: the definition of "Restricted Customer" before someone pointed out to you that the agreement defined the term differently than it's normally defined. You're disagreeing with yourself now.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/24 02:29:45


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





yukishiro1 wrote:
drbored wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
No, it's not pretty standard. We've been over why it isn't pretty standard. It prohibits a wildly greater range of actions than the typical non-compete or NDA due to the way it defines terms, and it purports to hold the signing party responsible for any damages even if they were not at fault. Both these things go well beyond what is normal in these agreements.


Proof?

Show us what a regular NDA would look like to you and include what it applies to.


I already told you what a "normal" one of these agreements looks like - indemnity would be tied to some level of fault, typically negligence, and Restricted Customer would be defined as someone who you had some relationship with based on your role with the company, not as all the company's customers whether you had any contact with them or not. It's one thing to say you can't leverage the relationships you created while working for one employer after going to a competitor, it's something quite different to say you can't do anything of any sort that would result in lowering the amount of money any GW customer anywhere in the world spends on GW products.

You yourself literally agreed with me earlier in the thread re: the definition of "Restricted Customer" before someone pointed out to you that the agreement defined the term differently than it's normally defined. You're disagreeing with yourself now.


I'm learning alongside everyone else with this, and so far all I've learned is that people are still really angry about not a lot.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




You asked a question, I answered it again politely in detail, you respond by saying the only thing you've learned is that people are angry about nothing. I don't think there's much useful discussion to be had with someone who asks you a question then ignores your answer.



   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

yukishiro1 wrote:
drbored wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
No, it's not pretty standard. We've been over why it isn't pretty standard. It prohibits a wildly greater range of actions than the typical non-compete or NDA due to the way it defines terms, and it purports to hold the signing party responsible for any damages even if they were not at fault. Both these things go well beyond what is normal in these agreements.


Proof?

Show us what a regular NDA would look like to you and include what it applies to.


I already told you what a "normal" one of these agreements looks like - indemnity would be tied to some level of fault, typically negligence, and Restricted Customer would be defined as someone who you had some relationship with based on your role with the company, not as all the company's customers whether you had any contact with them or not. It's one thing to say you can't leverage the relationships you created while working for one employer after going to a competitor, it's something quite different to say you can't do anything of any sort that would result in lowering the amount of money any GW customer anywhere in the world spends on GW products.

You yourself literally agreed with me earlier in the thread re: the definition of "Restricted Customer" before someone pointed out to you that the agreement defined the term differently than it's normally defined. You're disagreeing with yourself now.


A competent lawyer writing an NDA would define 'Restricted Customer' as any customer, interpreted in the broadest sense possible. That lawyer would also tie indemnity to any act that breaches confidentiality. The entire purpose of the agreement is to ensure there are consequences for a breach.

What you are complaining about are not defects, they are basic measures of competence.

But sure, show us the language you would use in place of that. Would love to see what you consider normal.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




What you are trying to do as a lawyer is create something that's legally enforceable, that the person will sign, and that accomplishes what you want to accomplish. NDAs and non-competes are very tricky legally because courts are reluctant to enforce them, especially when there is a big difference in bargaining power, and especially when you are reaching beyond what feels like legitimate objectives.

No-fault indemnity is a terrible thing to put into a contract like this, because all it does is risk the validity of the contract. Is GW ever going to want to actually pursue someone for violating an agreement like this based on a theory of liability that doesn't involve fault? Almost certainly not. So why include something like that, when it won't gain you anything, but it might get your contract voided entirely?

The same considerations go to the definition of a Restricted Customer. Why do you think the standard definition is more narrow, if any "competent lawyer" would define it as broadly as possible? If you don't believe me, google it and look at some examples, you'll find dozens and dozens of definitions of the term, and the vast, vast majority will define it relative to entities the employee interacted with in some capacity. There is no possible way to argue this is the standard definition of the term - it simply isn't.

It's defined the way it is because the definition is related to legitimate concerns, so a court is more likely to enforce it. Stopping someone from using business relationships they cultivated at one company against that company after leaving feels fair; it doesn't feel fair to tell someone they can't do anything that might lead to any customer anywhere in the world buying less GW product. That feels unnecessarily broad, and a court is not going to be likely to look kindly on you for doing it.

Your attitude of what lawyers are there to do is common among businesspeople who don't understand how the legal system actually works. It's better to write a good, fair contract that can be enforced than an oppressive, one-sided one that nominally benefits you more yet isn't actually worth much legally. Especially when the nominal benefits aren't something that actually really even help you, like a no-fault indemnity clause.




This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/24 03:23:33


 
   
Made in jp
Longtime Dakkanaut





The funny thing is that GW isn't that litigious. After a few Google searches, the only time he has ever actually sued was in the infamous Chapterhouse case 8 years ago.
I'm not covinced this is real in any case. There seem to be a few too many mistakes in the document. For example, why don't GW use the own full address in the introduction? They use their full address in the website terms and services and in their financial reports.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





yukishiro1 wrote:
What you are trying to do as a lawyer is create something that's legally enforceable, that the person will sign, and that accomplishes what you want to accomplish. NDAs and non-competes are very tricky legally because courts are reluctant to enforce them, especially when there is a big difference in bargaining power, and especially when you are reaching beyond what feels like legitimate objectives.

No-fault indemnity is a terrible thing to put into a contract like this, because all it does is risk the validity of the contract. Is GW ever going to want to actually pursue someone for violating an agreement like this based on a theory of liability that doesn't involve fault? Almost certainly not. So why include something like that, when it won't gain you anything, but it might get your contract voided entirely?

The same considerations go to the definition of a Restricted Customer. Why do you think the standard definition is more narrow, if any "competent lawyer" would define it as broadly as possible? If you don't believe me, google it and look at some examples, you'll find dozens and dozens of definitions of the term, and the vast, vast majority will define it relative to entities the employee interacted with in some capacity. There is no possible way to argue this is the standard definition of the term - it simply isn't.

It's defined the way it is because the definition is related to legitimate concerns, so a court is more likely to enforce it. Stopping someone from using business relationships they cultivated at one company against that company after leaving feels fair; it doesn't feel fair to tell someone they can't do anything that might lead to any customer anywhere in the world buying less GW product. That feels unnecessarily broad, and a court is not going to be likely to look kindly on you for doing it.

Your attitude of what lawyers are there to do is common among businesspeople who don't understand how the legal system actually works. It's better to write a good, fair contract that can be enforced than an oppressive, one-sided one that nominally benefits you more yet isn't actually worth much legally. Especially when the nominal benefits aren't something that actually really even help you, like a no-fault indemnity clause.






Maybe you should go tell GW how to write their contracts then
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: