Slashdot Mirror
Adobe Sues MacNN Over Photoshop Article
petard writes: "Law.com ran this article on how Adobe is suing MacNN over an article which appeared on AppleInsider with detailed information on and screenshots of Photoshop 6, currently in (non-public) beta. Could this be bad news for other rumor sites, and possibly even sites like Slashdot? Hope MacNN wins ..."
Wow.
l egal-nonsense" guaranteed right ), is only biting the hand that feeds you. Cover your the new version release of your primary revenue stream software? I'll have to consult our legal department first....
There must be a medical boneheaded-knee-jerk response test that is a mandatory job requirement in some of the corporate legal departments.
Instead of viewing it correctly as free publicity, it's automatically classified as a threat.
Beta-screen leaks to be accepted. It's all calculated into the marketing scheme to grab attention and future {mind, market} share. Suing the companies that publish (as in, freedom of the press, a "Constitutionally-but-still-subject-to-corporate-
Maybe what they should do is what the automotive industry does: disguise the object in question. That's right. Photographs of prototype cars, pre-production models, proof-of-concept cars, etc. are a mainstay of the automotive magazine. The manufacturer's counter to the various "spy" photographs: disguise the vehicles in question.
I can just see the user interface now:
Beta Tester: "Where's the zoom button?"
Quality Assurance Tester: "It's that black button right there."
BT: "You mean this black button?"
QAT "No, no, the other black button."
BT: "Oh, you mean this black button."
QAT (frustrated tone): "No, that black button."
BT: "Screw this, the entire user interface is black buttons. Even the workspace is blacked out. Why don't I just turn off the monitor and move my mouse around and make 'ooh, ahh, pretty' sounds?"
QAT: (under their breath) "I hate this fucking job...."
I absolutely agree with your assessment of the law (the Beta Tester surely broke the license) but with one proviso:
As much as we may hate the Big Boys, I think it's *very* germaine to find out if AppleInsider knew or suspected that the license was being broken. If not, they are co-conspirators, just like you don't have to pull the trigger to be a part of a murder conspiracy. AppleInsider is hardly a naive innocent - this is their stock in trade.
Imagine someone slipped your sister a 'date-rape' drug and took various photos without her consent. If they submit those pictures to a porn site, would you argue:
a) The website didn't know. They are innocent, and can continue to host these photos.
b) The website didn't know. They are innocent, but should take the photos down.
c) Holy Haddock! Maybe they didn't they didn't know, but any reasonable person would have asked! I mean there's a naked, unconscious (possibly underage) girl in those pictures. Not asking if it was 'posed' with proper concent obtained is tantamount to "Wanton Disregard" for the law and the rights of others or "Willful Neglect" at the very least. At worst, it's a tissue-thin pretense.
d) Da Bi-yatch Axt 4 it. And biznesus suk. Fsck 'em all.
e) Regrettably, there exists no contract between the site and your sister, and the material is 'out in the public now', so the cat's out of the bag. You can prosecute the scumbag with the drug -- if you can find him, but the porn site's actions were perfectly okay, and since there are 1st Amendment (free speech and freedom of the press) issues here, the porn site doesn't even have to help locate the scumbag: he's a "protected source"
Recall, the issue here is the *pictures*, not anything else the scumbag might have done.
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
The Gimp itself doesn't support editing in CMYK. It does, however, support printing in CMYK, and 6 and 7 color printers (CcMmYyK). The development version of the print plugin (which I am project lead for) supports the latest Epson Stylus printers, including the Photo 870 and 1270, and produces print quality comparable to Windows (many people think that in certain ways the print quality is better, although the smoothness still has a ways to go).
See http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net for more information on this.
The internal links don't work anymore. Here's all the pages:
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Then it's quite possible that they'll pay the price.
Whether you agree with it or not, the law is the law.
BlackNova Traders
...go after it's QA folks and UI designers who exist in a culture that loves to trade software and insider secrets. -- ib
--- Speaking only for myself,
I disagree. There are several significant elements of the Adobe case that differ from the Ford v. Blue Oval case.
First, Ford's suit involved revelations about a product that was already sold, and had already been widely reviewed elsewhere. The Article quoted, for example, observations by Car and Driver. The documents were used to confirm and elaborate on existing, legal comments. The Apple Insider article was entirely information that could not have been obtained from any legal source.
Second, there were very germaine issues of public interests in this case, including safety issues, reliability issues, and misrepresentation of the product being sold (e.g. Ford dynamometer tests showed the engine did not develop the horsepower advertised). There is no compelling public interest in the Apple Insider case.
Thirdly, the Ford suit was directed at preventing publication, not monetary damages, etc. they may well have won a suit on different grounds (and could still bring such a suit). However, there were 'common sense' issues involved in trying to recover damages for revealing your own corporate malfeasance. Adobe would have no problem suing for damages (however difficult to assess) rather than merely 'cease and desist'.
Fourthly, despite their self-proclaimed 'victory', Blue Oval lost most of the issues in the case, which was only a preliminary injuction. The finding was titled Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff' Motion for Preliminary Iinjunction. There were three major points, and two sub points. They won on the first count, a 'prior restraint' clause, and partly because it was a preliminary injunction and (one suspects) partly because Ford committed some egregious offenses, such as e-mailing the ISP before the petition for the TRO (Technical Restraining Order) was heard, and claiming that the site was in violation of a court order, thereby unlawfully shutting down the site for several days.
Bottom Line: Blue oval can't use the documents, and copyright/trademark infringement suits may still be brought without prejudice The defendant was even ordered to preserve evidence for such a future suit (See Court findings below.) It hasn't been that long (in court terms) since this verdict, and i haven't checked - a case may have been filed already.
Make no mistake, I think Ford was wrong, wrong, wrong, to hide this info. but this case may not be the best example to bring to the defense of Apple Insider!
1) Ford's request for preliminary injunction of Lane's using, copying, or disclosing Ford's internal documents is DENIED, and Ford's request for a preliminary injunction against Lane's use of Ford's trademarks and logo is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.
2) The other aspects of Ford's request for a preliminary injunction are GRANTED since Lane stipulated to the entry of a preliminary injunction as follows:
A. Lane is restrained from destroying, despoiling or electronically deleting or erasing documents in his possession originated by or for Ford Motor Company.
B. Lane is restrained from (1) committing any acts of infringement of Ford's copyrights, including unpublished works known by Lane to have been prepared by a Ford employee within the scope of his or her employment, or specially ordered or commissioned by Ford, if not an employee; and (2) interfering with Ford's contractual relationship with its employees by soliciting Ford employees to provide Ford trade secrets or other confidential information.
3) Lane is still obligated to comply with that part of the August 25, 1999 Temporary Restraining Order which required him to file with the Court, and serve upon Ford, within ten days, a sworn statement (1) identifying with particularity all documents within his possession, custody or control which were originated by or for Ford, (2) identifying the source (by name or description) of each document, and (3) providing details as to how Lane acquired each document.
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
We could save ourselves some time by asking the people who are actually lawyers to put IAAL in their posts. That way, everyone else - the majority of posters - could quit putting IANAL in their posts.
As a side benefit, you could search the page for 'IAAL' and easily identify lawyers in order to flame them.
If they violated it, it is actionable.
The idea behind non-public betas are to allow a company to test the product (w/o getting slammed). It also allows them to get feedback on features, that might or might not be included in the final product. Though as of the last couple of years, the original ideas behind beta have been diluted.
Fight Spammers!
"Trade secrets do not lose protection if they are stolen or otherwise illegally obtained."
Once a trade secret is leaked, it's no longer a trade secret. If someone steals a trade secret, and it's later reclaimed, it's still a trade secret. But the moment they tell the secret to someone who didn't play a part in the theft, the info is no longer a trade secret, and the thief is liable for the damages. tbo's comment is correct if you replace "if they" with "when they".
In this scenario, the trade secret was leaked when Joe Beta Tester gave the details to MacNN, not later when MacNN posted them to the world.
And of course, once a trade secret is leaked, it's no longer a trade secret, not having the protections of copyright or patent law.
The recource of the injured party is to sue the person who leaked the trade secret, the beta tester. Even if MacNN was certain that it was a trade secret, it was no longer a trade secret when it was in their hands.
True, IANAL, but this info is straight from Pamela Samuelson's course on intellectual property law at UC Berkeley.
Of course, the situation is entirely different if Adobe can prove that MacNN stole the secrets themselves, i.e. that they swiped a copy from a beta tester without their consent.
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
What is gamut? Is that related to gamma?
Color gamut refers to the range of possible colors available in a given colorspace. There are colors that you can produce using red-green-blue phosphors that cannot be reproduced via cyan-magenta-yellow-black inks on paper (and vice-versa). Photoshop gives you the option of working in various color spaces (RGB, CMYK, HSV, etc.) depending on your eventual output destination. It can optionally warn you, when working in RGB, for example, whether you're using colors that can't be reproduced on paper.
The gov't isn't stepping in. There's no police action. No coercive steps are being taken. Adobe's saying "Don't publish ill-gotten material."
Save the geek-with-black-tape icon for stories that deserve it.
Here are the Links:
..........sig...........
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
And A mirror in the event they are removed Right here
If you have access to Freenet, check out these nodes:
/macnn/photoshop/vif-fullscreen-small.jpg
/macnn/photoshop/vif-dropshaddow-small.gif
/macnn/photoshop/alegal-venus-in-furs.html
/macnn/photoshop/alegal-venus-in-furs-part4.html
/macnn/photoshop/vif-web-photo-small.gif
/macnn/photoshop/vif-spalsh-small.gif
/macnn/photoshop/alegal-venus-in-furs-part3.html
/macnn/photoshop/vif-adobe-online-small.jpg
/macnn/photoshop/vif-print-options-small.gif
/macnn/photoshop/alegal-venus-in-furs-part2.html
/macnn/photoshop/vif-save-small.gif
/macnn/photoshop/vif-preset-man-small.gif
/macnn/photoshop/vif-liquify-small.gif
/macnn/photoshop/alegal-pet-wolverine.html
/macnn/photoshop/pw-fullscreen-small.jpg
/macnn/photoshop/pw-animation-small.gif
/macnn/photoshop/pw-splash-small.gif
Well.. not neccicarily. I don't know if i agree with you or not because i don't know exactly what you mean.
The question becomes, _who is "they"?_ OK, so they should be held responsible. But who?
If someone who has entered into a beta liscence breaks the terms of that liscence, he has broken a contract and therefore the company he broke the contract with has every right to seek appropriate damages. [note that a statement like this does not neccicarily indicate i agree with shrinkwrap EULAs-- after all the way i see it, a beta tester is practically an employee of the company in question]
But if you ask me, if someone breaks a beta contract by giving out information, and someone else redistributes that information, the redistributor should __NOT__ be legally liable. They should have the basic right to release that information/screenshot, unless like they're violating copyright or something, and copyright does and should make exceptions for people "quoting" for review/journalism purposes.
I really believe MacNN should __NOT__ be held liable for violating a beta liscence unless they themselves violated the beta liscence. OK, i guess i'm a long-haired anti-IP extremist or something, but i see something inherently wrong with holding someone to the terms of a contract they were not parties to.
In short, the _person who wrote the article_, since they were the ones who entered and therefore the ones who violated the beta liscence, should be the one held liable, __NOT__ macnn. Macnn should be guiltless here and were if you ask me acting totally within their rights. The illegal act here should be the violation of the liscence, not the article about Photoshop 6.
Of course were the guy who wrote the article the liable one, i'd probably argue Macnn should pay his legal expenses out of common courtesy and because if they don't they'll never get another beta tester to trust them again, but it's all moot anyway because the whole thing will almost certainly be settled out of court.
Oh, btw, i thought this quote was funny from the article.
""It's rare that type of information is acquired by someone outside the company,"
MWAHAHAHAA!! Someone find the person who did this quote and introduce him to appleinsider.com, where you see things saying "we had screenshots of clarisworks 7 here, but apple legal made us take them down" on a regular basis.. "rare"? it's unbelievably common.
[and please do not mention MOSR in this place. MOSR _never_ says _anything_ that turns out to be accurate unless it can be attributed to the Thousand Monkeys With Typewriters Effect.]
But keep in mind the loophole these people find-- appleinsider almost invariably uses UNPAID, ANONYMOUS sources, therefore meaning that they themselves could not be said to be directly involved in the violation of the liscence; they just have some pictures and they're posting it. THe actual criminal is the source, who is anonymous and therefore never has anything done to them. The anonymous defence doesn't stop people from suing these sites, of course, but it should.
-mcc-baka
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS THEFT
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Of course you have that right - this is free speech. Now, if you had a contractual relationship with Adobe and your speech violates the terms of that contract, you may end up in court. But if you were to tell me a trade secret, I'm under no obligation to keep it a secret. It's Adobe's job and your job to keep their secrets secret, not mine.
The right to publish a work is protected by copyright law, and the right to use a particular technology is protected by patent law. If you want to protect the right to pass on ideas, some sort of contract is needed, and can only be enforced on signatories to the contract. So there's nothing to stop a third party from telling people what Photoshop 6 is like, displaying screenshots, etc.
The responsibility for keeping proprietary information secret falls on the company, not on the public at large. The government only supports certain kinds of protection for IP - patents, copyrights, and trademarks. If you don't want to register your work under those protections, it's up to you to keep your lips zipped. It's certainly not the fault of the press if one of the people you tell secrets to isn't very trustworthy.
IANAL, of course.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Somehow I doubt MacNN was a beta seed site for Adobe. If someone else broke their NDA, then Adobe needs to prove that they did it, but having received the information, MacNN was under no obligation to not publish the leak, nor are they obligated to reveal their source.
If Adobe can determine in another way who violated the NDA, or if MacNN chooses to reveal it (doubtful), then Adobe can sue for damages from breach of contract.
(IANALY)
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
Unless Bhatia (of MacNN) is telling the truth and he came by the feature guide for PhotoShop 6.0 legally, Adobe is perfectly within their rights to sue the pants off MacNN. It's illegal to publish trade secrets which were illegally obtained (as would be the case if a disgruntled employee or ex-employee emailed them to MacNN).
OTOH, if Adobe screwed up and had the feature guide publically available on their website or something else equally stupid, MacNN is in the clear.
That's a very important point, and I imagine the court case will hinge upon that.
Adobe would LOVE it if they ran an article on Photoshop 6 if it was very good, but they obviously have as little enthusiasm and confidence in it as I do.
Although Adobe does have a right to sue - they now MAY lose product sales because of this (no one cares about Photoshop 6 because its nothing new), I think that they should get tossed out because the people have the right to know how a preview release operated.
Besides, what's the difference between a pre-release review that loses sales and a post-release review that loses sales? Not much. It would happen either time, and the only people that would buy the program on the day of its opening (before the poor reviews would come out) are the ones that would buy it anyway, even after the poor reviews come out.
On a sidenote - go gimp!
And another sidenote - this is the most pirated program in the world, EVER. Adobe should be doing other things in the legalroom. :)
Thanks if you're still reading
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) -GAIM: MicroBerto
Berto
I really doubt Adobe will win because this is extremely similar to when Ford Motors sued Blue Oval News for printing secret car designs on their website. Even though the car designs were secret and probably stolen by an employee who had signed an NDA, the website won.
I just finished reading it, and didn't see anything all that negative about the article at all. In fact, it lists many improvements, although, certainly nothing to warrant a major upgrade in version - more like v5.6, but then again, 5.5 should've been 5.1. Whatever.
At the end of the article, in fact, it says:
--- quote ---
The release appears to be solid, and packs a number of additional refinements that are much to specific to detail in this report.
--- endquote ---
Not exactly a negative review, by any stretch of the imagination.
Hope MacNN wins
yeah, I like MacNN and all the dirt, gossip & rumor pages just as much as the next guy. Unfortunately, it comes down to intellectual property.
I can see 2 main reasons why Adobe would be pissed:
I like hearing new bits and pieces of stuff that's yet to come down the pike, but keep it real folks, and don't turn next year's super-cool stuff into vaporware.
- passion
Did MacNN sign a non-disclosure agreement(NDA)? If they did, then they are probably in violation. It is one thing to dislike a company for hijacking your software and hardware and using unfair business practices, it is another thing entirely to hate them for trying to protect their product's competitive edge by not telling other companies what features are in it before it even comes out! I know that if I spent 5 years developing a technology, was just putting the final touches on it, waiting to release it, and some spy from a big company, say Microsoft, but I don't care if it was Virginia Systems or my 3rd cousin, took my code, and put it into their product, before mine was released, I would be ultra-pissed. Plus, NDA's are serious business. If you are not going to be a good business partner, you won't continue to be a business partner.
Eh...
And another sidenote - this is the most pirated program in the world, EVER. Adobe should be doing other things in the legalroom.
My former employer bought Photoshop 5 on ebay (I know, I know, DUH) and when we received it, we saw it was very definitely a copy. So he called Adobe and tried to report it. They did nothing. ??? Apparently they're not too worried about piracy, just initial sales, which is what this leak may have hurt.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
The issue here isn't censorship or free speech at all. An agreement was made between Adobe and Person X, and Person X violated the terms of the agreement.
That's just it. Person X violated the terms of the agreement. Not MacNN, which never signed that agreement. All Adobe has the right to do is ask MacNN to pull the article, and demand that MacNN provide contact information for their source. Then they can sue the source, who's the one that violated the agreements.
But honestly, I almost wonder if a class-action suit should be brought on the software industry by its users. We buy and pay for their software. They owe us a look into where the products we paid for, and will be paying for again to upgrade, will be going. So what if competitors know what features will be in your software; merely knowing of the existence of a feature doesn't help you in developing a counter-feature of your own. Software will always improve, and as the ones who are paying the software companies' bills we have a right to know what they're doing with our money.
Adobe says both the existence of the new versions of its products -- Adobe Photoshop 6.0 and Adobe ImageReady 3.0 -- and their features are trade secrets.
/. is going to be hit with another cease and desist order.
Really good trade secrets too. Let's see, Adobe has released Photoshops 1-5. They also employ a bunch of programmers. There are two possibilities:
1) they are working on Photoshop 6.
2) oh wait, there's only one possibility.
Real nice secret guys.
I hear MS is working on a new version of office - oops, now
Adobe requests the court to enjoin Macintosh News Network from soliciting or disclosing Adobe's trade secrets and for recovery of damages which it says "could conservatively amount to tens of millions of dollars."
I say that's a conservative estimate, nothing pisses of Wall Street more than shipping a new version of a flagship product. I bet their stock tanked after this leak.
The complaint says, "Adobe will suffer lost sales of products currently on the market.
Totally believable -- I only buy software if I'm sure that the company has cancelled all future development efforts.
Hear that? That's the last few shreds of my faith in human intelligence being stripped from me.
--Shoeboy
(former microserf)