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...."
The internal links don't work anymore. Here's all the pages:
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
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
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
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.
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
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)