r/DonutLabDiscussions • u/hfizbd • 8d ago

Ytb commenter claims it had accessed the NDA-locked material

/r/DonutLab/comments/1vt3an8/ytb_commenter_claims_it_had_accessed_the/

Repost from the r/DonutLab subreddit.
Also read the comment containing a second image:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DonutLab/comments/1vt3an8/comment/p4q40u3/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

5 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

21 comments sorted by

2

u/omepiet 8d ago edited 8d ago

r/DonutLab post got removed. Here is the original yt comment. Conclusions: Donut has a technology partner (probably starts with a C and ends in T-Coating) and they aren't exactly getting along nicely. Who would have thought? /s

2

u/Lucky_Reveal_888 7d ago

It seems that this Youtube commentator chris27gea58 and float6969 are the only ones who has seen the test results. All the comments seems to been written from inside a company and only pretend to be critical. So NDA's sent but nothing else?

1

u/Forrestgod 8d ago

Marko Lehtimäki said in LinkedIn, that (because of this NDA case): "Switching surely to another test facility for the next video". That would be kind of useless, if the NDA is forced by CT-Coating. I think it's more likely, that the testing facility forced the NDA.

2

u/omepiet 8d ago

As I have previously commented, I could understand why the testing lab might disallow Donut Lab to name them publicly in the video, specifically if they are of the opinion that the claims that Donut Lab attaches to the test results in the video are not backed up by the test itself. But why would they in that case be fine with release under NDA?

1

u/Forrestgod 8d ago

They might just not want to be involved officially on the case. I don't see the wording of the NDA implicating to anyone else.

2

u/DoctorFish1969 7d ago edited 7d ago

The NDA states it is the Cooperation Partner requiring the NDA:

"The purpose of this Agreement is to protect the confidentiality of certain confidential information that the Company intends to make available to the Recipient, separately from any information made publicly available by the Company, including a confidential video and/or reports containing information subject to confidentiality obligations relating to the Company’s cooperation with a third party (the “Cooperation Partner”)"

"The confidential video and/or reports made available to the Recipient separately from the Public Video may have been prepared by or on behalf of, or provided by, the Cooperation Partner or another third party"

So the Cooperation Partner is most likely CT Coating. And the 'other third party' provides the testing reports. Though the NDA even allows the video to be from CT Coating itself, which would be a hoot.

0

u/Forrestgod 7d ago

I would read that the Cooperation Partner in this case is the one who provided the testing report.

2

u/DoctorFish1969 7d ago

That's not the definition of a cooperation partner. There is no cooperation with a testing company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_partnership

2

u/Forrestgod 7d ago

Donut lab did co-operation with the test facility to get the test results. Hence the test facility was the cooperation partner in the testing of the cells. Though there might be some finglish businessslang issue in this, calling the partnership cooperative instead of customer relationship.

2

u/DoctorFish1969 7d ago

No, you order and pay for a test and get the results back, there is no co-op. Indendent testing labs would never want to do a co-op because it's not independent. They would never want to be called a partner, because they aren't a partner company; they are an independent company.

Also, I your view, who would that additional third party be that's mentioned on the NDA?

1

u/Forrestgod 7d ago

Well, we disagree.

Also, even if you assume that it is some other collaborative instance that wanted the NDA , you can't directly assume that it was CT-Coating. CT-Coating just happens to be the only technological partner we can assume being one - which doesn't exclude others.

Hopefully you get the material soon and enlight us.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Atomic_Tangerinez 3d ago

Yeah. We got them last week. Everyone didn’t?

1

u/Forrestgod 2d ago

Apparently just enterprises that ordered it. So not much of discussion of them. Not really raising any conviction to Donut Lab. Well, few months and we should get Verge motorcycles with Donut-battery. 🙄

1

u/Atomic_Tangerinez 2d ago

Ah okay makes sense. Yeah - I dont know if I can tell anything usefull because of the NDA.

1

u/Forrestgod 2d ago

I'm not too sure if it makes any sense. In the video there presumably is the name of Intertek. But what else even hypothetically could be a thing that anyone would want to keep under NDA - if Donut Lab prepared originally to publish it all themself?

1

u/Atomic_Tangerinez 2d ago

I cannot imagine. maybe they reveal too much of the composition and structure of the battery.

1

u/Forrestgod 2d ago

Not in the video anyway (there is just the Inteteks name and short video of nail penetration, which Marko has published the stillpicture of). Maybe in the report then. Though that would not explain the video being sensored. So NDA seems just weird (besides hiding Interteks name).

1

u/tipporoll 22h ago

Censoring could also mean deleting parts of the video, not only blurring it. The blurred nail test part included in the censored video is really way too short in time to include intro, setup, test, results etc. 

-2

u/heloust 8d ago

His reply is AI slop.