Apple Computer faced tough questioning Thursday in its bid to gain access to electronic records of Mac enthusiast sites that published leaked details of an unreleased product. Although a lower court ruled last year that Apple should be able to gain access to electronic records of the enthusiast sites, a three-judge appeals panel in the State of California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, peppered Apple’s lawyer with questions. The judges wanted to know whether the information at issue represented a genuine trade secret as well as whether journalists’ right to protect their sources outweigh Apple’s right to protect its trade secrets.
The damage has been done, leave them alone, look after your secrets better next time, umkay. Why do Americans sue, rather than learn from their mistakes?
I was going to ask something similar, but more to the point, if “theft” of information has occurred, isn’t this a matter for the police?
FTA
In the lawsuit, filed in late 2004, Apple is not suing the Mac news sites directly, but instead has focused on still-unnamed “John Doe” defendants.
I can see suing the websites for posting the information, but once they start going after “John Doe”, aren’t they basically conducting their own criminal investigation? Don’t we have people with badges whose job it is to do that?
It’s like the RIAA subpoenaing people’s records from ISPs. If intellectual property has been been pirated, why isn’t the Feds or somebody finding the people uploading and making arrests? Shouldn’t criminal complaints be filed in both these cases rather than corporations/trade organizations taking matters into their own hands?
Edited 2006-04-20 22:52
Hmm, sounds exactly to me like the Cyberpunk novels, where corporations basically make their own laws, and enforce them. Hackers plugging in their neural interfaces to hijack some corporation’s IP and sell to the highest bidder. Yup, we’re not too far from that very thing. In fact I think we’re already there.
Leech
Ummmm….no
Apple wants to sue the employee who leaked the secrets, but they have to find out who leaked the secrets first. Misappropriation of trade secrets isn’t a criminal activity, so the cops would have absolutely no reason to start busting down doors. Your post makes little to no sense.
Theft of intellectual property is a crime. That’s where the cops come in. Calling it misappropriation doesn’t change anything. It’s still theft because it belongs to the company not the individual. And yeah, cops coming in questioning people will probably encourage Apple employees to shut more than the usual barrage of lawsuits.
Yes, but the constitution protects the rights of journalists to protect their sources. Apple cannot violate this important right, as nobody would speak to journalists at all if they could easily get in trouble.
Thats like blaming the house owner for getting robbed, if only he had been careful, or that it was the mini skirt that made me do it, a line was crossed when these websites published information of unreleased products they should be responsible enough to accept the consequences. The websites or magazines that publish trade secrets of other companies would not appreciate their won internal secrets being revealed to the world. The point of having a secret plan is having the plan secret. Websites should stop behaving like spy agents from the enemy camp and concentrate on reporting new and not being news.
Honestly, I can’t see what Apple hopes to gain by prosecuting their own enthusiastic user base. What “harm” did Apple suffer from this leek of information they were going to release anyway?
Mac enthusiasts should respond to this nonsense by boycotting Apple. Ironically, then Apple will finally be able to claim that they did suffer harm from this leak.
“What “harm” did Apple suffer from this leek of information they were going to release anyway?”
Well if we are to buy into the myth that Apple invented the concept of a graphical user interface (among other things) which others (Microsoft) stole/ripped-off, then Apple should be protecting their secrets. If word got out that they’re doing something uber cool, everyone will copy it and Apple won’t get the joy of “you saw it here first.”
Boycotting Apple won’t do anything to fix this problem. Look right here: http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/26405
“During its second quarter financial conference call, Apple announced that 50 percent of its quarterly revenue came from its music division”
Half their income is from selling iPods. And who buys iPods? Almost everyone and their grandmothers. Think of all those people who probably don’t care if some website (they probably never heard of) gets sued for publishing “secrets.”
What does Apple have to gain by silencing the rumor sites? They keep their flock of sheep in a shroud of mystery so that we’re eager for whatever Apple brings to market and buy it simply out of knee-jerk reaction.
It’s business practice. And it has been working for Apple.
“Well if we are to buy into the myth that Apple invented the concept of a graphical user interface (among other things) which others (Microsoft) stole/ripped-off”
1. It was not Apple who invented the GUI concept.
2. For instance: Apple “stole/ripped-off” Fast User Switching. So who’s better?
//”Well if we are to buy into the myth that Apple invented the concept of a graphical user interface (among other things) which others (Microsoft) stole/ripped-off”
1. It was not Apple who invented the GUI concept. //
Uhh … read the OP more carefully.
OP called it a MYTH … so he/she obviously realizes Apple did NOT invent the GUI.
I always thought Apple got the GUI idea from Xerox, and it wasn’t an “Apple original.”
Psst, apple, don’t bite, rip off and then eat the hand that feeds you. It kinda looks bad.
What I’d like to know is why, if you run a rumor based site, don’t you have all logs routed to /dev/null and delete all mail from readers after 1 day?
Then when Apple comes calling give them everything you’ve got.
1) They’re suing the very people who create the hype about Apple products? The very people who provide Apple with pages upon pages of free PR and marketing for their products?
This suing is getting pathetic; now sure, if someone was distributing an unreleased alpha version of some software then IP issues might come up, but this is nothing more than an employee saying, ‘hey, this is a rumour I heard at the place I worked’ – it happens in every industry, but it seems the IT industry is the only place where people get their knickers in a twist.
2) Where does the line get drawn between someones rectum pluck that turns out to be somewhat close to the actual product launch and the right for companies to protect their trade secrets?
What next? we’ll have big brother like corporations saying, ‘if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve nothing to hide!’?
Like I said many times, if things are getting leaked out, tough shit, because obviously there aren’t the safe guards in place to ensure that this doesn’t occur – either Apple isn’t providing enough incentives for employees to keep tight lipped or they’re not vetting their people enough before employing them.
This isn’t the first time they are doing this. The constitution is supposed to protect the right to have a free press, which can report on whatever it wants, including any rumor they hear. Why must Apple keep suing whenever anyone exercises their rights?? These cases should all be thrown out immediately if not sooner. Its total insanity, and just another reason not to buy Apple products or support the company. They are no better then SCO.
“The constitution is supposed to protect the right to have a free press, which can report on whatever it wants, including any rumor they hear.”
NOBODY (not even Apple) wants to stop the free press.
The problem is that at least one person (probably several persons) who signed a NDA with Apple behaved just like a traitor. And Apple is trying to find this (these) person(s). AFAIK this is legitimate behavior from Apple or any other corporation that wants to enforce its trade secret protection.
I don’t want to start a debate but to be brief I’d say that I understand Apple, but I can’t agree with some means they use…
“They are no better then SCO.”
I assume you’re joking here since from many, many perspectives Apple is much better than SCO (business-wise, technology-wise and of course hype-wise)
>> many perspectives Apple is much better than SCO (business-wise, technology-wise and of course hype-wise)
Surely you jest… If you removed SCO’s pointless lawsuits from the equation, Apple is about as dirty, backhanded and two-faced as you are going to find – they just get away with it due to their ‘cultish’ nature. They are the Ikea of the computer industry.
>Apple is about as dirty, backhanded and two-faced as you are going to find – they just get away with it due to their ‘cultish’ nature. They are the Ikea of the computer industry.
Unfortunately, the same coul be said of any corporation that does business.
Actually not.
There are many corporations on global plan that do not use the methods of Microsoft and Apple.
Much of Apples and Microsofts behaviour is actually illegal outside USA.
What Apple should do was to hire private investigators to check up on their employees.
Hunting down the bloggers won’t do no good.
@dylansmrjones
What Apple should do was to hire private investigators to check up on their employees.
What makes you so sure that they aren’t doing their own private investigation?
Hunting down the bloggers won’t do no good.
Hunting down bloggers maybe their best lead at this moment. We don’t know everything that is going on.
The bloggers are doing nothing but relaying information brought to them.
If somebody inside Apple is leaking information, then the problem is said somebody, and not the bloggers.
The bloggers should under no circumstance be forced to reveal names of their sources. Apple must figure this out on its own solely by supervising the employees.
The bloggers should under no circumstance be forced to reveal names of their sources.
Exactly. Currently, company X is asking me if I have contact information about person Y (they need it for lawsuit reasons). I happen to not have that info, but even if I did, I would not give it. Period. It’s not my responsibility.
//Hunting down the bloggers won’t do no good//
So … then … it *will* do *some* good.
Can’t not write no double negatives.
I know that, but you’ll be surprised if you know how common it was in english speaking countries.
According to danish gramma a double negative equals one positive. But check common american expressions, and you’ll see two negatives equals one negative, though of course it doesn’t make sense logically.
!!!
Well, you can NOT Stop Fans from spreading and Hyping what they know…
They are Fans, after all!
What would be Apple today, if not for the “Big amount of Real Fans that has had during years???
I understand that secrecy is important sometimes in corporation business, but sometime Apple goes too far in that…
They would do better in trying to improve their “Web Marketing Department” to take advantage of these Fans, and ‘News’ and ‘Hypes’ in the Web, that are produced by people that actually love Apple products!!!
Don’t think that because businnes is going pretty well now, you can get rid off of all those who have been supporting you during years. Even if you are inside, and them outside, and you do not see ‘eye to eye’ in everything…
You have to listen the people who support you, not to silence them…
!!!
Edited 2006-04-21 08:06
Since when did stealing become legal?
I hope the thieves get what they deserve.
Since when did stealing become legal?
I hope the thieves get what they deserve.
When you get a present from a friend… But it turns out the present was stolen… Does that make you as the receiver, a thief?
Err… No, it doesn’t. And damn, we’re talking information here, not something material. It’s Apple’s problem and error and failing that they cannot keep information within company walls. Journalists have nothing to do with this.
Next time, Nixon II will subpoena the Washington Post to force them to reveal who Deep Throat II is, using THIS VERY CASE as jurisprudence. Now oh yes, that’s a world I’d wanna live in.
Edited 2006-04-21 08:54
@Thom_Holwerda
When you get a present from a friend… But it turns out the present was stolen… Does that make you as the receiver, a thief?
But this isn’t the case here.
Did I take that present which I knew it was from a “leaker” then plaster this all over the net? It’s probably the same “leaker” ThinkNDA has been dealing with for a couple of years now. And yes that would make me liable. ThinkNDA is wrong here. The 1st amendment doesn’t allow people to steal as they please.
Err… No, it doesn’t. And damn, we’re talking information here, not something material. It’s Apple’s problem and error and failing that they cannot keep information within company walls. Journalists have nothing to do with this.
Next time, Nixon II will subpoena the Washington Post to force them to reveal who Deep Throat II is, using THIS VERY CASE as jurisprudence. Now oh yes, that’s a world I’d wanna live in.
Stealing info is the same has stealing materials. There is no lives at steak here. Nothing political. It’s like taking a pic of someone’s wife naked without permission and sending it to every porn site on the ‘Net.
So Thom, you’re telling me that you want to live in a world that has no respect for people’s privacy? That I can weasel my way behind the 1st amendment to protect my right to invade other people’s privacy just because I felt like it?
“When you get a present from a friend… But it turns out the present was stolen… Does that make you as the receiver, a thief?”
I don’t know how things are done in your country but yes, in mine someone who “stocks” stolen materials just get the same sentence that the thief… But he can reduces the sentence by saying who the thief is !!! 😉
When you get a present from a friend… But it turns out the present was stolen… Does that make you as the receiver, a thief?
It does when you know the goods are stolen.
It does when you know the goods are stolen.
Don’t talk nonsense. The one who breaks in to your house and takes the coffee machine is the thief. The person who gets the coffee machine from that guy, no matter if they know it’s stolen or not, is NOT a thief.
At the utmost, they are buying stolen goods and can be punished for it, and even then only if they did it willingly and knowingly.
Saying that the journalists are thieves is wrong at so many levels:
– according to Dutch law, theft is defined as the taking of goods that are not wholy or partially yours, with the intent of making them your own. Power also falls under ‘goods’ (i.e. illegal tapping of power is defined as theft), but information does NOT, because information is NOT a good;
– the journalists did not steal anything. They received it. They did not go to Cupertino to take the information.
And even saying they are guilty of receiving stolen goods is nonsense, first and utmost because information is NOT a good, and secondly, how are those journalists supposed to know the information is ‘stolen’ in the first place?
If these journalists are thieves, then so was Deep Throat. Now, would’ve you want him in jail?
@Thom_Holwerda
Don’t talk nonsense. The one who breaks in to your house and takes the coffee machine is the thief. The person who gets the coffee machine from that guy, no matter if they know it’s stolen or not, is NOT a thief.
He is a thief because he knows he’s getting stolen goods. And this applies in this case. ThinkNDA knew that the info coming was leaked. ThinkNDA failed to use common sense. Then he got a letter from Apple’s lawyers.
At the utmost, they are buying stolen goods and can be punished for it, and even then only if they did it willingly and knowingly.
But in this case they did it willingly and knowingly.
Saying that the journalists are thieves is wrong at so many levels:
– according to Dutch law, theft is defined as the taking of goods that are not wholy or partially yours, with the intent of making them your own. Power also falls under ‘goods’ (i.e. illegal tapping of power is defined as theft), but information does NOT, because information is NOT a good;
But is that same Dutch law similar in America? IMO information is “something.” You can blackmail with information.
– the journalists did not steal anything. They received it. They did not go to Cupertino to take the information.
If someone takes sensitive and private information from neighbours and gives them to me. Then I put all that private stolen on my web page. I am an accomplice. I didn’t go around the block collecting that personal data. But I am still responsible for what I have done (putting them on my web page). People have a right to their privacy. That also must be respected.
And even saying they are guilty of receiving stolen goods is nonsense, first and utmost because information is NOT a good, and secondly, how are those journalists supposed to know the information is ‘stolen’ in the first place?
Trade secrets are “something.” How are those journalists supposed to know the information is “stolen” in the first place? We’ll uh… Isn’t that the whole point of journalism?
What is unethical in all this is that some people think they can use their rights (1st amendment) to abuse and impose themselves on others willingly without any regards to respect for rights. It’s shameful to see people selfishly act like that.
If these journalists are thieves, then so was Deep Throat. Now, would’ve you want him in jail?
Deep Throat was a national problem.
ThinkNDA = ethics of a trashy tabloid (aka NONE lol)
Not even in the same league.
He is a thief because he knows he’s getting stolen goods.
Except nothing was stolen. Nothing. I dare you to provide me with LEGAL information proving otherwise.
Words have meaning, despite your efforts to distort it.
You were the one who made an analogy with a good, a gift from a friend, then you declare the analogy not valid !
If you have a stolen good in your possession, that doesn’t make you a thief, but that makes you a fence, which isn’t any better juridically. Now, speaking of information, one should notice that Apple isn’t suing any journalist, real or “somehow journalist”, but it’s just wanting them as witnesses, giving evidence. And since they don’t want to give that evidence, they would be treated as hostile witnesses.
It is a normal and legal operation for a firm that wants to protect its trade secrets. But you seem to think they should better protect their secrets, with other means. They should find another way to get to this precious information (something they probably would do if there was another way).
Your analogy with Deep Throat sucks as well. You are confusing leaking secrets (participating in a crime — maybe too strong a word in that case) with denouncing a crime, which was what Deep Throat was doing in fact (he was a whistleblower, and that is a special case). And finally, though I am tempted to give the site’s editors journalist statute, I am not sure they deserve it : Apple’s secrets aren’t all over the place, in the computers magazines, written by real journalists, not even on sites like this one, or Ars Technica…
First of all, you are confounding journalism with bloggism. One is a profession with ethics, the other is an hobby. Second, the Dutch law is completely irrelevant, since it is an american case. Finally, Deep Throat was denouncing a crime for the greater good. As for the blogger(s)…
To what I understand, the case isn’t much about information theft, but rather on trying to know who leaked the information. If the publisher knew the information was protected by an NDA, then he is an accomplice. If he didn’t, then he is fine.
As you probably know, collaborating with the police after witnessing a criminal act is a civil duty. Otherwise, you could be in trouble if you get caught. The one who published the trade secret(s) does not have to collaborate with Apple since it’s definitely not a criminal case…
Thus, since Apple cannot force him to collaborate, they are suing the publisher for disclosing his sources. The court will decide if he got to collaborate or not. What’s wrong with that? Nothing, really. They are just trying to protect their IP. They’ve got nothing to lose. I don’t think they should win, but still. They are using their rights.
As for those who believe they should drop the case and let the hype build up… They could, but winning this case would dissuade those who got real trade secrets (code, schematics, etc.; not some stupid info on their new products) from disclosing them.
Edited 2006-04-21 14:35
Under US law there is absolutely no legal distinction whatsoever between a lone blogger and the traditional press.
Edited 2006-04-21 19:10
….confusing journalism with bloggism. One is a profession with ethics, the other is an hobby….
Problem is, one man’s bloggism is another’s journalism, which is why the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, did not try to distinguish between the legitimate and illegitimate press. Nor did they distinguish between those who do it as a profession with ethics, of which they are ‘legitimate members’ and those who do it as a hobby.
They just protected the Press. Showing a greater understanding of the basis of a free society than most posters to this thread, and one hell of a lot more than Apple.
You completely missed the point. Did I said that one was more legitimate/credible than the other? They might be covered by the same laws in your country, but they are still different. You just can’t use them as synonyms. That’s all, really. Even the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, would have made the distinction (without having to discrimiate them legally).
i can start a news blog and call myself a journalist without a college degree.
so unless if these judges are controled by powerful rich companies, press is press even if a retarded monkey wants to release some press.
When you get a present from a friend… But it turns out the present was stolen… Does that make you as the receiver, a thief?
Depends on the situation. In most cases, actually yes. Though you might have luck by claiming you were in good faith – at least if it was at your birthday.
But apart from that, I agree that Apple has a problem, and should stay away from journalists (incl. the many bloggers).
What Apple can do is hiring a private detective and try to figure out who inside the company that tends to leak information.
….
Another thing: Why even go after the journalists? Might be Apple wants these things to stay secret, but don’t Steve Jobs (and the rest of the ‘gang’) understand that all the talk and rumours are for the benefit of Apple?
The more is leaked, the more is talked, and everybody will know Apple, if not buy it.
When you get a present from a friend… But it turns out the present was stolen… Does that make you as the receiver, a thief?
Actually, in many scenarios, it does! Being in possession of stolen property is a crime nearly everywhere in the US. That’s why there’s a saying “Caveat Emptor,” or buyer beware. If my ring gets stolen, and the cops find out you bought it from someone, do you think you get to keep it? Nuh-uh.
Actually, in many scenarios, it does!
No, it does NOT! When you receive stolen goods, you are a… Receiver of stolen goods, but NOT a thief. There’s a clear dsintiction between the two, as the word ‘thief’ implies you are the one actually comiting the crime of theft, whereas the receiver of stolen goods actuallly does NOT. The receiver of the stolen stuff will be punished as a receiver of stolen goods, but NOT as a thief.
And in The Netherlands, the receiver of stolen goods (which is called “heling” in Dutch, in English there’s no single word for it) gets a more severe punishment than the actual thief (they do this to discourage thiefs).
It’s kind of arguing semantics, isn’t it? The definition of thief has more to do with how the law of the land sees you. If you steal something, but later the courts determine you were allowed to take it, you’re not a thief. If you go and take something you believe is truly yours, but the courts disagree, you’re a thief.
Either way, you generally have to know you’re in possession of stolen goods or intend to aid the thief in order to be prosecuted, otherwise they just repossess the goods.
In this case, clearly the rumor mills know they are leaking NDA’ed info. They are guilty of reproducing it. Whether that’s a crime or not is up for debate, but you can ignore that most society’s believe that illicitly obtained goods or information is considered part of the greater theft.
(which is called “heling” in Dutch, in English there’s no single word for it)
Yes there is, ‘fence’. Look it up.
You might also want to look up article 138a lid 2 Sr of the Dutch ‘Wetboek van Strafrecht’, which forbids obtaining and/or spreading data that you have acquired while illegally hacking into a computer-network. So yes, information *can* be stolen under Dutch law in certain cases and you can get punished for it.
Edited 2006-04-21 18:01
Uh? Who stole what? Oh, right, nobody stole anything.
The amazing thing is that someone actually modded you up. Rabid mac fans, idiots or astroturfers? Hard to tell.
@archiesteel
The amazing thing is that someone actually modded you up. Rabid mac fans, idiots or astroturfers? Hard to tell.
It was Chuck Norris.
Theoretically speaking because it’s not like I really care about Apple, but what is the real difference between “stealing” and “releasing” trade secrets/intellectual property IF the company stands to lose financially because of it? Granted there would have to be definite evidence of it, but if it could clearly be shown, why couldn’t the person responsible be charged with a crime?
The real difference between “stealing” and “releasing trade secrets” is that the first is a criminal act, while the second one could make you the target for a civil suit but is not in itself illegal.
Lowering a company’s profit margin is not a crime. Not only that, but you’d actually have to put a dollar figure on the alleged loss due to the leaks. Just saying “we lost money” is not enough – you’d have to prove exactly how much money was lost, and prove that it was the direct consequence of those specific leaks.
I certainly understand what you’re saying. I just think it’s a very fine line between the two, something for lawyers to argue about. If I was Apple, I’d press the case for criminal charges since lawsuits haven’t stopped the leaks.
Apple won’t press for criminal charges, because revealing confidential corporate information is not a crime.
It’s also not clear that such leaks would hurt them financially. One could even argue that rumors and hype actually help their sales…
At the ‘total control’ business practices Microsoft is always berated for, since almost all of it is tenfold in the Apple camp yet barely gets a toot – This is just an uber example of that, finally enough people will notice, though they still seem to be getting nowhere near as irate over.
Let’s see… their hardware only with their OS at point of sale, trying to lock third party vendors out of support, bundling applications putting the small software vendor out of business, pushing their own browser ahead of 3rd party alternatives, bundling that browser AND their media player, and now trying to say bloggers aren’t protected by 1st amendment rights in the US.
Seriously, if MS tried half the shit Apple gets away with daily, you’d hear people screaming bloody murder – or at least a few more legal battles in the EU. Oh, wait…
What always amazes me is the lack of thinking that is behind your amazement.
Let’s see… Apple is, who knows why, the only hardware vendor whom people reproach to sell their hardware with their OS. SGI does it, Sun does it, etc., nobody cares (btw, you can buy Apple hardware with Yellow Dog Linux installed). Now, for the rest, is Apple worse than Microsoft, and Microsoft unfairly treated ?
1 – Bundling applications putting the small software vendor out of business : both of them are guilty. But a comparison of the number of victims shows Apple much less a killer than Microsoft.
2 – Pushing their browser ahead of 3rd party alternatives : both guilty. But Apple’s browser at least respects the standards, and you won’t find a site that works only in Safari.
3 – Bundling that browser and their media player : both guilty, but there is no problem to uninstall Safari, iTunes, or whatever application bundled with OS X, and replace it by whatever you want. Thay are bundled, not integrated with the system.
4 – Trying to say bloggers aren’t protected… : they aren’t trying to say that. The worse you can accuse them is of trying to say that bloggers aren’t journalists, something that hasn’t been defined yet. And even considering the bloggers as journalists doesn’t make their action illegitimate. This is just my opinion, and I know it is a subject of debate, but when Judy Miller wrote the information about Valerie Plame, she was participating (unknowwillingly) in an act of treason. Should her source still be protected in that case (I know, it sucks, publishing Apple’s secrets isn’t an act of treason, but you get the idea).
Finally, if MS tried to do just half the shit Apple is getting away with, we all will have a big sigh of relief, because, unfortunately, MS isn’t doing half of what Apple does…
>> What always amazes me is the lack of thinking that is behind your amazement.
<peanut>Markum, MARKUM… Whoom.</peanut>
Didnae get the post, did you. You actually argued my case – EVERYBODY does it, only MS gets shot down for it.
… and I’m actually quite thankful MS doesn’t do half what Apple does, because I’d prefer not to be locked into one hardware vendor who builds rinky plastic crap with rinkier internals (Apple Quality – Right, don’t see it, don’t get it), or be expected to spend $100/year or more on their latest version of the OS. (every three years or more is just fine, thank you) When Leopard hits we’re going to be talking 6 releases in five years, with them expecting $100 a pop each time for what amounts in most cases to little more than a windows service pack… and generally speaking causes as many if not more problems upgrading between them if you don’t do a wipe.
But of course, it’s apple so they can get away with it… The point of my original post being anyone can get away with anything in the computer industry so long as you aren’t Microsoft or SCO…
“When you get a present from a friend… But it turns out the present was stolen… Does that make you as the receiver, a thief?”
It depends on if you received the present in bad faith or not.
This is a moot point though since nothing has been “stolen” from Apple. Information has been leaked, yes, but it hasnt been stolen.
“It’s Apple’s problem and error and failing that they cannot keep information within company walls.”
Indeed but they do also have the right to file a lawsuit against the rumor sites. There’s a big difference between filing a lawsuit and that suit going to court though.
Being unethical isnt necessarily unlawfull.
It seems many people here are confusing ethics and law.
What Apple is doing is perfectly legal even though it’s not necessarily ethical. They have made a request to the courts for access to certain information and now it is up to the *courts* to decide if their request is warranted. Filing a request itself does not expose anyone or put anyone in jail.
This is how the U.S legal system works, for better and worse, and Apple do know how to work the legal system.
There are, for good reasons, no laws against being assholes.
Filing a request itself does not expose anyone or put anyone in jail.
This is how the U.S legal system works, for better and worse, and Apple do know how to work the legal system.
Yes, exactly like SCO. They are doing the SAME EXACT THING SCO and the RIAA are doing. They are trying to get people to not exercise the rights provided by the US constitution. They are trying to inject Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) into journalists so they will only talk about what Apple tells them to talk about. Just like SCO wants people to pay for using Linux without any reason. Just like the RIAA wants people to buy each song that they want to listen to for every single device they want to listen to it on, and not only once. Apple wants to use FUD to convince people to only say and talk about what Apple tells them to talk about, only purchase Apple hardware and software, and so on.
“SAME EXACT THING SCO and the RIAA are doing.”
I don’t know about that.
SCO says ibm used unix code in linux and violated terms of license. Problem: IBM has that info
RIAA is trying to find users to willingly broke the law and prosecute them Problem: Companies have this info
Apple is trying to find out who in their company leaked information that could potentially hurt their business. Problem: Journalists blew the cover
I do not really understand what you are talking about.
Companies release rumors from time to time on purpose and sometimes they get out against company policy.. its all about profit and OMG I think apple is a company, and i think they are even traded on the stock market.. and you know what? I think they are a publicly traded company.. Just maybe, just maybe they are trying to look out for their shareholders…
I can understand why Apple would be a bit peeved; however, going after the hands that feeds you is another thing. It’s sh*t like this that makes me want to through an Apple computer out the window!
I would be worried if someone leaked out source code, literally in-depth trade secrets, etc. It seems to me their fame is getting to them, like the RIAA.
Rather than waste company resources and repeat history, they should learn from this experience and move on. By simply going after Defendant’s A to Z, shows they are doing a witch hunt.
Thank God I don’t use Apple crap!
I will probably get modded down for this comment but I feel like getting it off my chest. I don’t like Apple’s attitude. They are way too touchy about preserving their elite image all the time. If you make something look too similar to their product they come after you. If you talk about something they haven’t released they come after you. Damn, it is like dealing with information Nazis.
I saw their latest round of advertising comparing PC’s machines to Apple’s and trying to convince everyone they need an Apple computer since the PC’s are dull and grey and conservative. Come on Apple. I can’t believe they are still pushing that old slogan “our product is sexier than their’s so buy it.” I wonder what Apple would think of my self-assembled box which usually doesn’t have a cover on it. I only recently put the cover on since I saw my cat nosing around in it and I feared it would get shocked.
Way too picky and touchy for my liking…
Here’s something to consider:
Remeber the old “1984” advertisement Apple created which showed a woman running down an aisle throwing a hammer into a screen displaying a dictor like image?
Consider the irony, the commercial promises to set us free but in reality if you share too much information the hammer-fisted Apple attorney-dictator will come after you. Interesing, eh?
@buff
Your very emotional post made no sense at all. You don’t want Apple to defend itself? O_o
@ ronaldst
The post must have made sense to some people since people increased it’s rating.
For clarification I will attempt to explain the problem in more precise terms. Once information is leaked out of Apple and enters the public domain it is up for free grabs. If Apple has a problem with leaks then it is really their issue at how they contain intellectual property. Apple doesn’t need to defend itself against the public. Going after people once info. is leaked out is just plain bad taste and annoying to everyone. It is petty and smacks of entitlement.
It’s interesting that Apple is quick to go after people that leak it’s secrets, presumably after signing sort form of NDA, and yet after agreeing with the Beatles not to enter into the music industry back in 1991 they did anyway..!
Now in court they’re trying to split hairs over the legality of their agreement by claiming they’re just a “distribution mechanism”. Perhaps Steve and co. should focus on trying to follow the agreements Apple has signed up to before they start trying to hunt down people who they claim have broken theirs..!
Apple probably knows what group of employees had access to the leaked information. Rather than punish the entire group, all that they have to do is supply each individual with an exclusive bit of information and wait and see which bit of information gets leaked. Voila, the traitor is found out and prosecuted, end of story. Trying to find out from the press is just the wrong way to go about this and ultimately futile.
In which amendment to the US Constitution is the notion of the ‘legitimate press’ set out and defined?
As opposed to some other sort of press?
In which amendment to the US Constitution is the notion of the ‘legitimate press’ set out and defined?
In the secret Chuck Norris amendments.
//In the secret Chuck Norris amendments.//
LOL!
And, of course, Chuck Norris has counted to infinity. Twice.
ok I’ll leak a rumor right now, i dont know if its true but its the word on tha’ street from “confidential” sources.
Apple is going to sell TVs, or a magnificient virtual home entertainment centers that they are currently testing.
Everyone should take a look at this article:
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Apple_v_Does/
Nobody stole intellectual property from Apple. There was no theft. This is not a criminal case. No trade secrets were stolen. The only thing that was leaked were some upcoming product announcements. Apple suffered no financial loss at all. By pursuing this civil case through the courts, the company’s management are making themeselves look like idiots.
>> the company’s management are making themeselves look like idiots.
and that’s different from their NoP how?
company policy was violated, so a firing or lawsuit is the only thing they can legally do unless if they convince the gov’t $$$ otherwise