Announcement

**Helevitia** · 13 May 2002, 08:10

So what are you trying to say? That you feel the posting of the info was justified?

Dave

**pgde** · 13 May 2002, 08:20

On the intro page to this site is the following statement:

Truely Giving The Finger to The NDA
News item posted at 0:47 GMT by Ant
I was quite expecting this to happen before the 14th and from these people, IXBT have been true to form and published seemingly every scrap of information they had on Parhelia. Whether it is their own NDA that has been broken or someone else has broken their's to provide them with the information I don't know. I'm sure many of you feel this is no big deal and it is great to get the lowdown on Parhelia as waiting until the 14th was simply to much. Sure it isn't going to ruin things for Matrox, nothing could do that knowing what Parhelia is but it is the principle of so blatently disregarding NDAs that annoys the hell out of me. What this does in reeinforce what many in the industry see as the inherent untrustworthyness of online editors and I'm afraid that ends up with many of us getting tarred with the same brush thanks to one or two glory hunting individuals. This leads to online editors not being trusted to be "real" journalists and leads to their exclusion from future events all bar one or two of the big boys. Oh hell I could rant on for ages and I'm sure you're only interested in the fact that you can now see what Parhelia is really going to be capable of. Me I'm truely disappointed with such disregard for NDAs as it really gives those of us that honour a deal that we enter into a real kick in the teeth.

Well, it is obvious that they did not break an NDA (see Haig) and I would think that the appropriate thing would be to retract the above statement about IXBT. Perhaps others did, but Matrox did NOT have IXBT under an NDA.

Whether or not they should have published this, is an open question. Journalism is about news and obviously this is news to a lot of people. And like it or not, there is no legal constraint agaisnt publishing legally obtained news (at least here in the US) as long as you weren't under an NDA or party to an NDA. And, this happens in the print industry as well, not just in the online world. Just read the Washington Post and see.

**Helevitia** · 13 May 2002, 10:20

Oh god! Shut the f*ck up! You are obviously one of those idiots that would sell their mother for money if you had the oppurtunity. Quit trying to justify your lame ass excuses. The print had to come from SOMEWHERE. Gee, I wonder if it came from somebody under NDA?? Prove that it was "legally obtained" as you put it.

Dave

**Pace** · 13 May 2002, 10:27

Ant: Whether it is their own NDA that has been broken or someone else has broken their's to provide them with the information I don't know.

pgde: Well, it is obvious that they did not break an NDA (see Haig) and I would think that the appropriate thing would be to retract the above statement about IXBT. Perhaps others did, but Matrox did NOT have IXBT under an NDA.

Que?

**SteveC** · 13 May 2002, 10:35

Originally posted by Pace
Que?

Sera-sera! Whatever will be, will be! We're getting a Parhelia-ee, Que sera, Sera!

**pahelianism** · 13 May 2002, 10:40

Originally posted by SteveC

Sera-sera! Whatever will be, will be! We're getting a Parhelia-ee, Que sera, Sera!

MUAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
*LOL*
*ROFLMAO*

**Helevitia** · 13 May 2002, 10:40

lol!

Announcement

Russians And NDAs

Russians And NDAs

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment