Slashdot Mirror
Rumors Removed At Apple's Request
(Full disclosure: I own some Apple stock and have been a fan of the company since my Apple][+; also, MOSR's parent company did ads for Slashdot several years ago.)
Apple apparently claimed to MOSR that - among other things - they had "proprietary and statutory rights" that were violated by the stories that ran on the site. Sounds fishy to me. Unless they can prove an NDA was violated (and Meader says none was), I can't see how they have a case. You can't copyright a fact.
But I'm not a lawyer. If any lawyers would like to comment on this, feel free.
Effectively what this means is that large legal fees would have to be paid unless the rumor site removed the rumors. Win or lose, nobody likes to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit. It just costs too much to defend so the rumors get pulled. Just a fact of life on today's web.
To be sure, another large factor in MOSR's decision is that they are supporters of Apple and of the Macintosh community. Meader says their website "was originally created to help Apple through the rough times of '95-'97 ... because the Mac community is so protective of its center, we don't feel that it's wise nor beneficial to fight Apple on this."
But, as Meader goes on to say, "The real matter at issue here is that Apple wants to be able to do what they want without taking responsibility for failures, schedule slides, or unpopular plans, until they're already carried through. ...Apple figures that rumor sites are inevitable, so individually they have no value. They can be tossed away when they become an inconvenience, and others will spring up to continue giving them free, no-strings hype."
The end result is that rumor sites are allowed to exist ... as long as they don't get too uppity and cause too much trouble for the bottom line.
But here's an interesting angle. MOSR publishes its stories under the OpenContent License (which goes by the odd acronym "OPL"). If anyone happened to snag a copy of the offending rumors before they were removed, then according to the terms of this license,
"You may copy and distribute exact replicas of the OpenContent (OC) as you receive it, in any medium,"
as long as you reproduce the copyright and warranty-disclaimer, and a few other usual things. Oh, and as long as you're willing to get sued by Apple, whose lawyers presumably will welcome the chance to make themselves, once again, useful.
Why should MOSR be held accountable for someone else breaking an NDA? Shouldn't Apple have to prove that an NDA was violated? Either way, once the info is out, it's out. Maybe Apple can sue the person who broke the NDA, but that should be the extent of their legal rights.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
---
So instead of Apple losing money, many Mac Cloners went out of business? One of them, Power Computing, got bought out by Apple after the clone licenses got revoked. If it was Microsoft, that would be anti-competitive behavior.
---
The difference is, Apple doesn't have 90% of the desktop OS market. They have less than 10%, and at the time it was far less than it is even now.
Cloners developed something with a strong dependency on Apple-supplied software, hardware, and R&D. They signed a limited contract to make Mac clones using these resources, which ran out. Apple opted out of renewing. That's it.
Now, you can shout 'monopoly!' over and over as much as you'd like, but the fact remains that Apple can't be a monopoly when there are so many alternative segments within the same market for them to explore. Yeah, Apple is a monopoly in Apple-supplied operating systems and hardware, but that's kind of obvious for any company isn't it?
The point is, Mac cloners could have changed platforms and licensed Windows and still have a chance to survive. A Wintel cloner is pretty much stuck with their platform, or they're going to get screwed in the market.
They have property that they protect, perhaps at the detriment/bankruptcy of competitors. But that alone does not make a monopoly.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
I really don't understand why many people love Apple. ... But the list of negatives is very, very long: inability to update their software with modern necessities (PMT, VM that's not broken, etc). Backstabbing the developers. Backstabbing the clone manufacturers. Incredible arrogance. Price gouging ... Look-and-feel lawsuits. Closed hardware. Closed software. Closed minds.
Clue me in. Why does Apple get all this loyalty? The products are good in a lot of ways, but they're not that good (be honest!). Is it the home of people who just like to be different from the mainstream, and that's the attraction?
I understand your concerns, but I think the confusion lies in the fact that you seem to be forming most of your opinion of Apple based on political/industry actions rather than what the end result is for the person who uses the products.
The basic issue is that Windows and Linux are basically computer-centric operating systems. You are forced to adapt to the computer. The reason Apple has built such loyalty over the years is that it realizes that most computer users are human beings. They like to accomplish tasks quickly, and then move on. 85% of the world's population doesn't care what a kernel is or why one might want to upgrade it. This is particularly true for artists, who want to focus on the art, not the technology. So many people have told me that they like the Mac because it doesn't get in the way of the creative process. This is absolutely crucial to the concept of why Apple is popular with normal people, and creative types. And then there are those that are technically brilliant, but still think computers should be easy and fun to use. These people often become Mac developers.
Additionally, being primarily visual creatures, humans appreciate asethically pleasing elements, such as a well-polished, attractive user interface, and creative approaches to industrial design. This is, of course, more attractive to designers and such. These people don't want to become the next ESR. They just want to accomplish tasks, and possibly play some games. The vast majority of computer owners' lives do not revolve around their computers. There's only a very small segment of the world that cares what database a site is running.
And I know the slashdot masses reject such ideas as blasphemy or just flat out "wrong," which is extremely frustrating. Slashdot was, at some point, a forum for alternative points of ideas to be appreciated. Yet there are still people roaming these forums that truely believe that a person doesn't "deserve" a computer unless they can use text configuration files or write their own code.
Also, as one last note -- the only PowerBook line that ever had signficant problems was the 5300, and that was more than 3 years ago. Aside from that, Apple customers have experienced considerably less hardware issues than the average person with a wintel laptop.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
The "DISCLOSURE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED" language at the end of the email makes the following point for those that are still missing it:
The concept that anyone can by law control what you or I do with information we acquire is at best ridiculous and at worst dangerous. The emperor has no clothes; but we have been conditioned to think they are there. Let's all wake up and stop being blinded by the lawyers and the folkes telling us how crazy it is not to have intellectual property laws.
Frankly if I or anyone discovers your secrets, that should be your problem, not one for the taxpayer funded courts.
The only jihad I see here seems to come from you. Why do you feel this need to come up with lengthy posts trying to discredit Mac users?
Perhaps if you can discredit the technology someone will listen to you. Not everyone feels that they are defined by the people who use their computing platform.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
"Love the Mac, Hate Apple" has long been the Macintosh afficionado's creedo. Apple is a short-sighted, mean spirited and callow corporation that's about as despicable as they come. Their current attitude towards independant resellers and users, especially in terms of tech support and making good on defective equipment, is nothing short of "slimy".
Unfortunately, Apple also has the habit of producing revolutionary products that are so much more than the sum of their creator. So, even tho they killed HyperCard, the Newton, OpenDoc and a myriad of other interesting and worthy technologies, even though their legal department is staffed by the Barney Fife brigade and can zero in the big guns on their own foot with uncanny accuracy, people are still loyal.
This is why there are so many Apple/Macintosh rumors sites: Mac users, especially professionals, cannot trust Apple to behave in a predictable, professional manner. Unfortunately, their products are of the caliber where we need to make an effort to get around the limitations of the company to use the best damn computing tools on the planet.
SoupIsGood Food
Hasn't anyone else gotten it that MOSR is full of shit? $10 says that he made up the story (or got bad info... on Ars, one guy said he sent in info he'd made up and it got posted... on THIS story. True, I can't necessarily believe him, but he's more trustworthy than MOSR) and then had "Apple Legal" (read, himself) "pull" the story.
Oh my god!! Look! It's says "Apple Legal" has smacked down on MOSR! Oh Joy of the Heavens! It's true! It's true! Sweet Merciful Crap! They got something right!
...bullshit is all...
The Happy Blues Man
The Happy Blues Man
I accept on blind faith that Cincinatti exists.
First, I want to say that Linux/BSD are my primary platforms. I'm writing this from a Debian machine (admittedly under Netscape but Lynx, pine and trn are second nature to me). I have no difficulty in recompiling kernels or tweaking makefiles. This being said, I use Macs for a lot of graphics work. They are extremely easy to use and configure.
Case in point: when I needed to attach a Zip drive I only had to plug it in and start the computer and the drive was automatically detected. This may seem an idiotic reason to someone at home with mke2fs and vi'ing fstab, but is a godsend for those artsy, graphics types who are not technical.
Second, though Windows is catching up swiftly, the Mac has excellent color calibration and media features. Again, this seems a minor detail to gimp users, but it's a huge cost saver when it comes time to proofing ($2 a proof on a dye-sub can add up quickly). Linux does not yet have a comparable technology.
Also, multiple monitor support has been in Macs for a long time. It's difficult to appreciate this unless you're using it for production work, but it's one of those features that I cannot easily do without. Yes, Linux can support this with multiple X servers or Metro-X and Windows now support this with some tweaking but it is no where NEAR as supported as the Mac. Believe me, I've looked at the alternatives.
As for other reasons, I don't think innovation and swimming against the current should be so lightly dismissed. USB and Firewire are really cool technologies. Macs, though they didn't pioneer USB, were one of the first systems to deploy it widely. Wireless ethernet is also very cool and very useful. Again, though not the originators, Apple has made it affordable.
I hate to sound like I'm defending Apple, because they clearly have done some BAD THINGS. But you seem to be holding them to a higher standard than any other company.
RM 101, I enjoyed your comments very much. Here's my take on the issue.
I try to practice what I preach. I work in the hi-tech industry and admire innovative companies. When I buy products, I try to pick the ones which demonstrate forward progress. I believe that Apple has helped push the industry forward, unlike another company (which shall remain nameless) which has proved more of an anchor.
Apple managed to migrate all their users from the Motorola 68000 to PowerPC architecture with minimal pain. That took balls. Apple is planning to migrate their OS from a custom kernal to a BSD based product. For a consumer oriented company, that definitely takes balls. Apple has firmly embraced SCSI, USB, FireWire, etc. Apple made ethernet standard equipment and is doing the same with wireless connectivity. Apple is shipping video editing software with some iMacs. Apple believes in leading edge industrial design. On both the hardware and software side, Apple has a consistent history of innovation which has helped stimulate the industry.
Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."
Right, or the people who read MOSR. Or did you forget who the content was for?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So what if the kernel is at least partially BSD. If I can't get a command-line, recompile the kernel, or even add some odd piece of hardware, Mac OS will get no more attention from me than it has since I left the printing industry.
Well, according to Apple and other sources, the kernel is 100% BSD+mach, you can recompile, you do get a command line (if you want it... optional install), etc. The IO driver structure (called IOKit) is open source, so you can add all the hardware you want, as long as you can write a driver for it :)
Supreme Lord High Commander of the Interstellar Task Force for the Eradication of Stupidity
A company should not be able to simply call a legal task force and bully someone into "not saying something about them". All things said Apple doesn't have anything to worry about from this sort of rumor mill - they should only attack truly false dogmatic claims that slander the company as a whole. I see where you are coming from, and you raise valid points. From my viewpoint I may want something to happen - but it doesn't mean that it has to. And nobody has the right to make someone do as they please with the fear of a legal dept. Regardless of how it is, this is not the way it is ment to be.
Yeah, okay, but that was when Amelio was CEO... he never had any style.... although he did have enough taste to wear boxers...
2 1337 4 u!
Or you can speculate about vaguely remembered rumors of recalls. Up to you. :)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
First Apple kills off the clone manufacturers, stranding me with a great Power Computing PowerCenter Pro that I hope never dies. Now my only Mac choice if my well-constructed clone goes belly-up is to buy one of those cheesy, plastic, Fisher Price looking Apple computers. That's smart. You allow people to make clones, then you continue to make your own hardware to compete with them. Then when you're lossing your ass because the clone people are making machines 10x better than yours, you kill the whole situation. BRILLIANT! You guys are fucking geniuses!
Then you take the Newton people, spin them off, and before they can continue to make something even better than the great MessagePad 2000, you reel them back in and kill them off too! Now I'm stuck with a MessagePad 2000 with no where to move up to. "Oh no, a good idea! It must be stopped!"
I don't own a TV, so the only place that I am going to get to see Apple's ads are at Adcritic.com. Hello?! That's free advertising. You don't have to pay to run it on TV. People will click on your ads and view your sales pitch without you incurring any further expenses. I can hear the brainiac in marketing on this one: "What? People are showing our ads and we aren't having to pay for them to do so? That's just not right. They must be stopped. Stop them at once!"
Hey Apple. Why don't you graph this: y=(-x)^2+3. Put 1970s on the left side and Present day on the right. Look familiar? It should. See where you are going? Yep, that line keeps going on down.
What a bunch of fucking geniuses.
</RANT>
--
FattMattP (Mac user, budding Linux convert)
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
This made me wonder if Apple doesn't "leak" some info just to throw off the rumor-hounds and to make product announcements more spectacular. Showmanship? You bet, but it helps sell computers.
MOSR is "known" for being inaccurate in many cases, but that is part of being in the "rumors" business. Lately MOSR has been more and more careful with readers explaining that rumors are rumors and no one should base any sort of decisions on them until (if) they become fact.
There are those who aren't fans of MOSR though.
BTW, MacSlash has been carrying this story since 7:22 this morning.
MacSlash: News for Mac Geeks
Aha! So Apple is trying to pull an Adobe Systems-style censor threat. The first line of defense for one of these is to reply to the email saying you refuse the validy of the email and and demand a certified letter of Apple's demand. By the time you get the paper either by messenger or fedex, the story has spread as much as possible. Anybody could compose an email posing as a lawyer, demanding article removal and threating legal action.
blessings,
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
Yes he does, if the only alternative is to discredit its users. You know, those people who get work done day in and day out using the OS in question?
If you'll discard your 'anonymous coward' label, I'd be more than happy to have a serious debate on these issues (in particular, how your first two claims are completely false, and the last is subjective in that I've been 'reliably' running OS9 on Powerbook with few issues).
But really, I imagine it's much easier to practice 'hit and run' zealotry, saving you the burden of responding to my original complaint - that dissing a platform's entire userbase is about as low as you can get in the zealotry scale.
Jihad, indeed.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
...now if that ain't funny...
Apple has argued that the information published on the website was only available to people who had signed an NDA, and that therefore regardless of how MOSR got the rumor, it must have been in violation of an NDA. Apple isn't pursuing an action against MOSR per se, but against whichever person leaked the info to MOSR.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
I remember when the OS was renamed OS8, a lot of people assumed it was some black voodoo to kill off the cloners using their own contracts. Then I used OS8, and realized that it probably deserved the moniker (it was no Copland, sure, but it wasn't a 7.X release either).
Since then, Apple has often changed their numbering schemes during development to reflect where they felt it belonged - even without the need to renegotiate contracts with cloners.
Now, where I *will* agree with you is where you say the cloners (I'm specifically thinking of Power Computing here) were kicking Apple's ass. All things equal, PCC deserved to kick their ass in the market because (at the time) Apple was spewing forth some pretty shitty hardware. However, the cloners wouldn't be anything without the MacOS, and it was Apple's to take away.
I do disagree about the platform, unless you mean it's not a successful platform unless it features more than one vendor. While the average geek would love to piece together their own boxen - and this is what the clones promised - it doesn't matter a bit for the average consumer, graphic artist, web designer, or educational institution. For Apple's core audience, the Mac is quite a viable platform.
That said, I want cloning back. Even if I choose to buy Apple hardware, as long as cloners can expand the MacOS marketshare, everyone wins. Unfortunately that's not what was happening before...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Here it is
Here they are in all their questionable glory. (Edited to raise signal-to-noise)
Saturday, July 8
PowerMac "Cube" Update
As soon as our "Apple's 'Cube' Desktop Mac Confirmed" article (see below) was published yesterday, [snip]
Without further ado, the latest details culled from the past day's reports:
Several sources with long and distinguished track records now concur that this design is indeed the planned enclosure for "Mystic," the multiprocessor PowerMac G4 based on the UMA-2 motherboard chipset. The unconfirmed codename for the Cube enclosure is "Rubicon." Accurate measurements of the exact size of the Cube are still not available. However, thanks to a much clearer side-by-side comparison of the Cube and an iMac, a reasonable estimate would be 12 inches to a side -- slightly smaller than the front face of an iMac with its Elevator down. Although easy to overlook on first glance, the "front" side does contain a standard DVD-ROM drive. The outer door is a tremendous improvement over the hackish solution used in the last two generations of translucent Minitower PowerMacs; instead of swinging down and out of the way on a hinge, it moves directly in and out as part of a one-piece media tray. The bottom of the Cube is rubberized, removing the need for "feet" while keeping the machine firmly in place. When opened via a small latch on the side, the Cube is lit from within to allow easy viewing of the internals in low light. To allow for easy portage without disturbing the Cube's serene lines, handles are stowed in unobtrusive slots on the same side as the Ports pane.
Beyond the internal DVD drive, there are no provisions for additional internal removable drives; Apple apparently plans to rely on the external USB and Firewire busses for these.
[Apple Legal threat snippage]
Friday, July 7
Apple's "Cube" desktop Mac confirmed
After months of obscure reports and unreliable sources, two contacts with extremely solid track records have reported sightings of one of Apple's best-kept secrets -- its next-generation Desktop enclosure and the changes to its product line that will come with it.
While one of these new reports claims intently that the machine -- a near-perfect cube about 2/3 the size of a modern-day iMac -- will be a complete replacement for today's iMac line-up, the other is not so sure....and the remaining body of evidence is none too clear on whether this enclosure will be applied to the PowerMac or iMac spaces exclusively, or in both.
Setting that important detail aside for the moment, there is much exciting news about this new Cube that is of much greater reliability:
[UPDATED] Approximately 14 inches to a side. Clear polycarbonate plastics similar to today's Macs offer views of the machine's innards, while opaque colored panels sport a large Apple logo and provide a sleek look. Although multiprocessor G4 applications would likely require more powerful cooling, prototypes are fanless. Cooling is provided by numerous large vents on the top and bottom of the enclosure, allowing heat to naturally rise upward and out of the cube. All six faces of the cube are featureless, aside from the power cable and an almost-invisible ports panel on the "back," which handles USB, Firewire, Audio I/O, Ethernet, and the built-in Modem's phone jack. A small tab on one of the "sides" allows for that side to be opened for access to the machine's internals. The entire package, including motherboard and all components, weighs approximately ten pounds.
There are significant signs that this may be the long-rumored monitorless iMac; for example, the prototype sources have reported on does not appear to have external ports to accept PCI expansion cards. However, there does appear to be enough internal room for them if the external ports were added.
A related but as yet unconfirmed rumor states that Apple is moving away from including PCI slots by default in PowerMacs, instead wiring the Universal Motherboard Architecture's PCI controller to a small connector which would support an external PCI enclosure with any number of slots. Note that this would be much less expensive than a full-blown PCI Expansion Chassis, which connects a single internal PCI slot to any number of add-on slots via a costly PCI bridge chip and associated hardware. This scheme would merely move PCI expansion outside the default PowerMac enclosure to allow for more innovative small-footprint designs as well as support more than three PCI slots for those who need them.
For now, all but the details of the Cube enclosure itself are to be considered highly speculative. We will be watching developments in
this story very closely -- if you believe you may be able to clarify matters, drop us a line!
Whew! There we have it.
Screed
[This message has been edited by sCreeD (edited 07-09-2000).]
Whew, there you have it. !screed
Isn't this about an NDA? If I had some brilliant idea--say, to implement auto-canceling switches in turn-signal activation controls--and I hired some mechanic to design a prototype, I might reasonably have him sign an NDA.
If, later, the Edsel Rumors Circular published an article alleging that "a certain car company is currently working on a self-canceling turn signal", I expect I could contact ERC and say to them "look, that information was secret, and the only people who knew about it were bound by law and mutual consent to keep it secret, so you really shouldn't have gotten hold of it. We'd like you to please cancel circulation of the article."
And if ERC was a supporter of a "certain car company", they'd probably do it out of regard for me (as the owner|manager|duly-appointed legal counsel of said company).
Not everything is necessarily a free-speech issue. Nor is Apple building an Edsel with self-canceling turn signals. That's just a rumor.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
I'm a little unclear on why some people seem to think that if information exists anywhere in the world, it should immediately and infinitely be the property of all citizens of the internet. Apple is working on various prototypes for next generation case designs. Where is it written that everybody who has a web browser has the right to get information on these prototypes?
Specifically, why is it that we are so concerned about individual privacy concerns, but nobody cares about the privacy concerns of organizations? Why is it that Slashdot policitcal correctness sates that Bob has a right to privacy, but not Bob's company?
I can see how the people have a right information about, say, their government, as it does ultimately belong to them. But Apple's not a government. Sure, there are plenty of people with Apple stock, and those people do deserve to know what's going on, and vote on various directions of the company, but you can't give secret information to that group of people without giving it to everyone.
Additionally, let us not forget that these rumor sites sell banner ads. That is, in some cases (probably not all), rumors are posted at least in part for personal gain, at Apple's expense. Think what you will of highly-valued companies (such as the one that owns Slashdot), but the individuals that work at Apple, such as the industrial designers, are passionate, driven people. They deserve some credit. There are few things more frustrating for an artist than a work being shown before it is finished.
I would also point out that Apple frequently gets more attention for their products if they are unexpected. There's nothing unusual or devious about this. There's a natural human appreciation for the elements of surprise.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
the stuff about the legal threat has been snipped
----------
Saturday, July 8
PowerMac "Cube" Update
As soon as our "Apple's 'Cube' Desktop Mac Confirmed" article (see below) was published yesterday, [snipped legal threat info]
Without further ado, the latest details culled from the past day's reports:
Several sources with long and distinguished track records now concur that this design is indeed the planned enclosure for "Mystic," the multiprocessor PowerMac G4 based on the UMA-2 motherboard chipset. The unconfirmed codename for the Cube enclosure is "Rubicon." Accurate measurements of the exact size of the Cube are still not available. However, thanks to a much clearer side-by-side comparison of the Cube and an iMac, a reasonable estimate would be 12 inches to a side -- slightly smaller than the front face of an iMac with its Elevator down. Although easy to overlook on first glance, the "front" side does contain a standard DVD-ROM drive. The outer door is a tremendous improvement over the hackish solution used in the last two generations of translucent Minitower PowerMacs; instead of swinging down and out of the way on a hinge, it moves directly in and out as part of a one-piece media tray. The bottom of the Cube is rubberized, removing the need for "feet" while keeping the machine firmly in place. When opened via a small latch on the side, the Cube is lit from within to allow easy viewing of the internals in low light. To allow for easy portage without disturbing the Cube's serene lines, handles are stowed in unobtrusive slots on the same side as the Ports pane. Beyond the internal DVD drive, there are no provisions for additional internal removable drives; Apple apparently plans to rely on the external USB and Firewire busses for these.
----------
20 minutes on a platform you had never used before? That's not too bad.
When one sits down at a new piece of hardware/OS it takes a while to find your way around. Especially when you have new concepts like "unmounting a floppy" to figure out.
Unless you've redefined "intuitive" to mean "Exactly like WIndows".
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
I have to agree with you here. Some (quite a few) years ago I attended a seminar given by Star Micronix to introduce their new Gemini 10 printer. A representative from Star proudly announced that they had "stolen" a number of employees from Epson, and because of this they knew what Epson had up it's sleeve for the next couple of years.
Star pulled a coup by producing a printer with a sleek, sexy design (for a printer, anyway).
Epson was too far into their development cycle to make any substantial changes, so by the time they released their new model months later, it looked like shit in comparison.
The relatively unheard-of Star made deep inroads into the then hot printer market. - It pays to play your cards close to your chest sometimes.
satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.
"Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated . . . And will be prosecuted with a lead foot and a gleeful smile."
---
seumas.com
It's the new trend in business (especially high tech business), your customer is your enemy.
I don't see how Apple taking legal action against a rumor site is a demonstration of this theory. Apple's is primarily trying to keep information private from its competitors. Your theory only makes sense to me if you count the handful of people who run MOSR as the "users."
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
Then the next Mac expo came and went, and it turned out that the rumor was all BS.
This is probably the same thing happening here. Apple has proven to be a master of misinformation and misdirection in order to make sure that their product announcements will be more suspense filled. It's all Barnum-like showmanship on the part of Steve Jobs. After the expo, the lawyer letters will be forgotten about again.
Of course, the fact that there is no real story here will not prevent Mac OS Rumors from playing themselves up as martyrs of the free press cause... anything to get a few more web hits.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Heh. Now Slashdot can frame a letter from Apple's lawyers on the wall right next to the one from Microsoft =)
Christopher A. Bohn
cb
Oooh! What does this button do!?
There is NOTHING, REPEAT, NOTHING in copyright law that says that anyone must protect their copyright, or lose the right to enforce it. The can selectively enforce it all they want. The requirement you're talking about ONLY APPLIES TO TRADEMARKS. I see probably 10 people make this mistake in their responses to any copyright-related article on /., and just about every time they get corrected by someone. It's amazing that there are so many people out there with this misconception.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I can say that Apple is making a 500-foot robot with left over MAG. NeXt case parts. It shoots fire, talks and can fly!! It dose not mean it is true. Maybe some one hit too close to home on this one a simple not true or no comment would other wise do. I like the cube thing. I hope they do it.
I work for a large networking/communications companies (one of the big three in the US) and we are pretty strict about this stuff too. You leave and aren't careful, and they pad lock your door, investigate, and call lawyers.
It's only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything...
Unsubstantiated lies suggested to be fact with the intent to mislead, decieve and defame is libel. Rumor is... well, it's nothing. "Hey, so and so might decide to possible do this or that".
Doesn't sound like it has a foot to stand on.
---
seumas.com
Without knowing the specifics of Apples complaint, it sounds like a classic slap suit designed to quash free speach. Depends what state MSOR is in, but if they are in one with anti-slap suit laws, they may have good recourse. Of course this is completely invalid argument if Apple has evidence of violation of NDA or similar agreements.
This seems rather ass-backwards to me; Metallica is suing their fans, and now Apple is doing something rather similar? Apple has only recently gotten back on their feet, thanks in a large part to the dedication of the Apple user community. It just seems wrong to me to turn around and bash that community in the face.
That would be like Debian turning around, claiming copyright to all the GPL software they support, and then trying to slap the FSF with a lawsuit...
To die, to code, perchance to sleep; aye, there's the rub. For in this code of grep what sleep may come?
But rather than opening that can of worms, the Court would almost certainly massage the case so that only one part of the Constitution applied.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
"from the can't-get-more-alliteration-than-that-sorry dept."
:-)
Yes, there _could_ be more alliteration than that... if the story was about RAMBUS.
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
This is really not intended to be flamebait, although I'm sure many people will interpret it that way. Oh well, let the Karma fall where it may.
I really don't understand why many people love Apple. Granted, in the past they have come up with many innovations, the greatest of which was popularizing (note the word) the GUI. Give them credit where credit is due.
But the list of negatives is very, very long: inability to update their software with modern necessities (PMT, VM that's not broken, etc). Backstabbing the developers. Backstabbing the clone manufacturers. Incredible arrogance. Price gouging. Bad hardware (powerbooks have had a lot of quality problems, several brain-damaged printer models). Look-and-feel lawsuits. Closed hardware. Closed software. Closed minds.
Microsoft never dreamed of the anti-competition, monopolistic practices that Apple has implemented. The only difference is that Apple has been incompetent at becoming a monopoly. Can you imagine the world we would have if Apple had won?
Clue me in. Why does Apple get all this loyalty? The products are good in a lot of ways, but they're not that good (be honest!). Is it the home of people who just like to be different from the mainstream, and that's the attraction?
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
You missed my point.
Now let's look at what I actually said:
Apple is dedicated to the idea that form is more important than function, even if Apple is straining to provide function as well. For example, the latest cases with the four handles are easy to move around (four handles, yay) but they're far more about appearance. Too bad they scratch so pathetically easy.
I give credit for how the case with the four handles is easy to move around (I didn't mention that the motherboard and PCI card frame fold out, which is keen too) but then said that the case design was far more about appearance than functionality. Then I said it was a shame they scratch so easy. What I'm saying here is that since they're primarily about appearance, it's a shame they scratch so easy, because Apple couldn't even get that right.
You're so wound up in your defense of Apple that your reading comprehension skills are suffering. I agree, the new Apple cases are quite functional. I just think they're spending too much of the consumer's money (Granted, the consumer chooses where to spend it) on appearances, especially since the consumer is no longer able to purchase a clone which puts more emphasis on a quality product for a reasonable price.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
i recently had to move ISA fax cards to PCI fax cards in the dell 4200. the sheer pain and aggravation of opening the case, adjusting the cards and then closing it up again drove me insane.
now, my dad has a blue and white g3 and to open that and switch the hard drives was like a walk in park.
apple contiunes to hold advantages over integrators like dell bacause of the innovations that they incorporate into their software and hardware.
finally, on the software side, apple enforces their User Interface Guidelines because consistency is important to them as it should be. i develop my linux applications according to apple's guidelines.
thanks goes to eazel and helixcode for seeing that linux sorely needs consistency.
Someone posted the text of the rumors on an AppleInsider message board, which you can get at below (about halfway down):
0 4621-2.html
http://forum.appleinsider.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/0
...I'd post them here myself, but I'd rather not incur the wrath of Apple's legal department.
Frankly, I think they have the right to ask that they be taken down, but it'd really come down to the courts as to what actually happens.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
That is the excuse often used by companies who like to prosecute every chance they get for stuff like this, but would you want to take the risk?
With all the confusion about what you are allowed to say about companies (thanks, DMCA, I didn't want that first amendment) would you want to risk thousands of dollars (or yen, euros, etc. Wouldn't want to be called US-centric) that you probably don't have in the first place on the outside chance that you may break even?
Finkployd
MOSR is, to say the least, not highly regarded in the Mac community. Its stories generally turn out to be wrong, and it frequently retracts and modifies stories. As a result, very few people likely believed the MOSR articles. (Visit AppleInsider's Future Hardware forum to get a good feel for the average Mac user's feelings towards MOSR.)
Now, with MOSR's reputation in mind, put yourself in Apple's lawyers' shoes. MOSR has just posted an article about a cube-shaped Macintosh computer. If the article is false, then of course you don't do a thing. But if it's true, you also wouldn't do a thing. By threatening legal action, you would be confirming the product's existence, at least at the R&D level. Apple's lawyers would have to be brighter than that.
Then there's the whole issue of the fact that the lawyers have absolutely no legal ground whatsoever to stand on. MOSR is a rumors site. It is extremely unlikely that it obtained physical documentation of the computer's shape and specifications, especially when you take into account that MOSR was unsure whether the computer was an iMac or a PowerMac and that it changed its specifications at least twice, reducing the box from about 14" or 16" down to 12" at the last time I checked before the article was pulled. As such, I think I can say with confidence that they were not in copyright violation, and also that the information wasn't obtained by breaking an NDA. So Apple's lawyers would essentially be making an idle thread--something that could result in a countersuit yielding MOSR hundreds upon thousands of dollars.
It just doesn't add up. Perhaps MOSR did, in fact, receive an email, and perhaps the email really did ask them to be quiet, but that email could not have come from Apple Legal.
...the computers were only "not ready for prime time" because Xerox management didn't care about making consumer models. Everyone working there, down to the secretaries, had desktop computers with GUIs in the mid-'70s. There's a lot of overstatement on both sides about the relationship of the Mac UI to the Altos UI. The Mac definitely innovated, not just imitated, but at the same time it's disingenuous to imply that the PARC designers were just doodling in the dark until the Macintosh project came along. If Xerox's management had shown even the level of clue that Tandy's management did when Steve Leininger came to them with the TRS-80 (one of the only times "Tandy management" and "clue" could be used together), the computing landscape today might have been very, very different.
Can they legally hold us to making the above email confidential? I mean, shouldn't they have us aggree to that condition before sending us the message.
-- Superlame http://catpro.dragonfire.net/joshua/
The point is, my clueless friend, that Epson got its ass bitten hard for a while. They may be strong now but they suffered then.
Star is gone? Maybe from the consumer market, but they are far from gone.
satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.
After months of obscure reports and unreliable sources, two contacts with extremely solid track records have reported sightings of one of Apple's best-kept secrets -- its next-generation Desktop enclosure and the changes to its product line that will come with it.
While one of these new reports claims intently that the machine -- a near-perfect cube about 2/3 the size of a modern-day iMac -- will be a complete replacement for today's iMac line-up, the other is not so sure....and the remaining body of evidence is none too clear on whether this enclosure will be applied to the PowerMac or iMac spaces exclusively, or in both.
Setting that important detail aside for the moment, there is much exciting news about this new Cube that is of much greater reliability:
There are significant signs that this may be the long-rumored monitorless iMac; for example, the prototype sources have reported on does not appear to have external ports to accept PCI expansion cards. However, there does appear to be enough internal room for them if the external ports were added.
A related but as yet unconfirmed rumor states that Apple is moving away from including PCI slots by default in PowerMacs, instead wiring the Universal Motherboard Architecture's PCI controller to a small connector which would support an external PCI enclosure with any number of slots. Note that this would be much less expensive than a full-blown PCI Expansion Chassis, which connects a single internal PCI slot to any number of add-on slots via a costly PCI bridge chip and associated hardware. This scheme would merely move PCI expansion outside the default PowerMac enclosure to allow for more innovative small-footprint designs as well as support more than three PCI slots for those who need them.
For now, all but the details of the Cube enclosure itself are to be considered highly speculative. We will be watching developments in this story very closely -- if you believe you may be able to clarify matters, drop us a line!
There ought to be rules about how companies can go after people if their trade secrets get leaked.
I'm assuming that Apple considers their new computer designs to be trade secrets. If Apple didn't want the whole world to know, they should have kept tight security. If somehow the world found out what the new computers looked like, then that's tough cookies for Apple. They should be barred from trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle.
A parallel is found in the auto industry. Automakers have to transport cars around to get them from the shops to the test tracks. A lot of those cars are very top secret models not meant for production for a couple years or more. Many people who work for magazines like "Car and Driver" try to get spy shots of the vehicles as they are being transported or tested. The engineers know this, so they stick on a lot of fake plastic bumps on the car to hide the true shape from the photographers. If by chance a picture is published, then the magazines won one, and the automakers lost one. Better luck for GM next time - they'll probably try to beef up security somehow.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
That's a pretty ignorant statement to make. Apple followed a trend that consumers were looking for, and it really paid off. If you call that unimpressive, at least give it good business sense.
The iMac is positioned well in price. At first, it doesn't look like it, until you see all the WinTel systems that have this:
*:Monitor sold separatly
That is the difference. Apple made a good-looking machine, with good features, and everything is included. I know that the majority of the people who post here probably don't even care what they wear to work, but 90% of the world does, and they like to have a CPU that is "cute" or fashionable.
Third, Apple included a lot of features (Firewire, USB 64-128 RAM, 6-10 gig HD, good monitor) at a low enough price to grab people who aren't programming or high-end video editing on board. That is 99% of the computer using world.
So from your point of view, Apple may not be impressive, but if you look at it from a business point of view, they blew the roof off. They had the number one selling line of CPUs for something like 2 years.
At least give credit where it's due, and open up your closed mind.
It's only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything...
It's the new trend in business (especially high tech business), your customer is your enemy. Movie studios attacking customers for wanting to watch their movies, record labels attacking music fans, software companies attempting to gather as much info from their suckers...errr...customers as possible to make even more money from them, and nearly everyone attacking fan sites.
They finally figured out we are so sheepish that we will continue to pump money into them even if they mount a full offensive against us. Welcome to 00's consumerism, like it or get sued.
Finkployd
MS threatened me under NDA while I was testing Office 98 for Mac in beta. Every company does this. There are sites out there that get stuff pulled at MS's request.
What about MS's fucking government trial where they force their product on other companies (Dell, Compaq) and threaten other (NetScape, Apple, RealNetworks). So what were you saying about MS being the angel in this one? Apple isn't being split in two by big-brother for their anti-competative practices.
It's only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything...
Of course at HQ they're going to be a bit concerned when rumors (like the Disney/pixar/whateverelse merger) proliferate unchecked and never seem to die.
I think the problem here isn't the fact that "rumor sites" exist, but instead, even after repeated denials by Apple, the rumors *STILL APPEAR* on the Net.
This event sure as heck isn't the downfall of "rumor sites", because I can't see how a company could get something that is true pulled without a large backlash.
This is another view of the world.
Apple has always had a love-hate relationship with rumor sites and mags. MacWeek owed its existence to the rumors it published, and Apple contributed with leaks and information (though this was in the pre-Jobs days, or is that post-Jobs?, at the very least, it was between Jobs).
MOSR publishes nonsense almost every day, with no effort at qualification beyond, "we received two completely separate anonymous emails that dehydrated iMacs will be on sale in February! Stay tuned!" so its no surprise that Apple jumps on their case.
Apple shouldn't legitimize the site by harassing them. A better strategy would be to just ignore them, and let them have their fun.
Why?
HELLO! FREE ADVERTISING! Adcritic.com is a haven of nothing but commercials. People go there to watch these commercials.
Smack! PEOPLE GO THERE TO *WATCH* *COMMERCIALS!*
"Hmmm, this website is hosting our advertising for free, and actually encouraging visitors to view ads for our product - with no expense to us, save the original development costs for the commercial. NO, THAT'S BAD. MAKE THEM PULL THE ADS."
That's the most descriptive example of "Think Different" that I have ever seen.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Fact, fiction, or otherwise the 1st amendment allows anyone - any business - anything to say whatever they damn well please. Corporate law dictates (as far as I know) that a business must gain written permission to use copyrighted material (content) if it is to be re/sold. I honestly do think that far too many businesses out there are abusing legal decisions in lieu of our constutional rights. The right to have free association is also at odds here because I as a consumer decide whether or not to listen to a rumors site - not another business for me.
I have obtained the actual message. This is not a joke, this is what Apple mailed to Ryan.
From cpyrt@apple.com Fri Jul 7 20:56:43 2000
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:28:28 -0700
From: Copyright Admin. <cpyrt@apple.com>
To: Ryan Meader <ryan@macosrumors.com>
Subject: NOTICE OF INFRINGEMENT
*Apple Confidential*
-NOT FOR POSTING OR REDISTRIBUTION-
Dear Ryan,
Re: www.macosrumors.com
It has been brought to our attention that you have posted an article on
the above web site titled, 'Apple's "Cube" desktop Mac confirmed'
(hereafter referred to as "the Article").
By posting the Article, you are improperly disclosing Apple's trade
secrets. Apple believes that the person(s) who disclosed the information
in the Article to you violated their non-disclosure agreement with Apple.
Consequently, Apple has never authorized the information to be disclosed
or published and your continued display of the Article could result in
your company being held for violating Apple's proprietary rights. Your
continued dissemination and use of this information is in violation of
Apple's statutory and other rights.
We believe, in good faith, that the information posted is being used in a
manner that is not authorized by Apple and that the information contained
in this email is accurate. Therefore, Apple demands that you cease and
desist from disseminating the Article posted at the referenced URL
immediately, including any hyperlinks to other locations where the
information or Article may be available from all web sites and servers
under your control.
Please immediately remove the Article and confirm in writing by Monday,
July 10, 2000 that you have removed the Article from your web site.
Apple reserves its right to seek immediate equitable and other relief,
including damages claims, should you fail to remove this material.
Thank your for your courtesy and immediate cooperation. I can be reached
at (408) 974-9994 should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Sue Runfola
Apple Computer, Inc.
Legal
Sue Runfola
Apple Legal
Copyright Administration
1 Infinite Loop, MS: 38-I
Cupertino, CA 95014
Phone: (408) 974-9994
Email: copyright@apple.com
Fax: (408) 974-5436
THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE PRIVILEGED AND MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSON(S) NAMED ABOVE. ANY OTHER
DISTRIBUTION, RE-TRANSMISSION, COPYING OR DISCLOSURE IS STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE
NOTIFY ME IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE OR RETURN E-MAIL, AND DELETE THIS
FILE/MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM.
Interesting how folks like you always comment on that.... I've been at my current job for about 8 months (where I have a windoze machine), and have never used the floppy drive. Maybe Apple made a good choice by not making me pay for including one in my own G3? You assume that a radical decision is automatically a bad one.
How dare they protect their own product thats still in development from the public! How dare a company attempt to make money, what the fuck is wrong with them. Here all this time I thought they were out to make people happy and spread joy.
Say you're working on a new product to compete with someone, would you mind if I leaked some technical details and pictures?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Per Jamie's original article: ...from the "can't-get-more-alliteration-than-that-sorry" dept.
Apple Asks for Annullment of Advance Article
BMOC Busts Balls of Broadsheets
Cabalistic Computer Company Calls for cancellation of contraband communiques
Developers deride dampening of disclosures
... etc. etc.
The truth about trolls: They're just spammers, wasting our time/bandwidth and calling it 'free speech'
The hammer bounces off the screen, smacks the blond bimbo is the face, and millions of people realize that just because a computer smiles at you, that doesn't mean it is nice.
--
+&x
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Oh yeah, and Apple never gives socks or underwear...
As a side note, this tactic does not hurt MOSR in any way. In fact, it helps them. For last MacWorld Expo I was checking MOSR every hour for the 3 weeks leading up to The Day, just so I wouldn't miss that magic window of gossip. Talk about a way to boost hits/ad revenue!
2 1337 4 u!
Over at http://www.mosr.net/
They take Meader down a notch or two, especially when they call him on his BS posts.
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
The ISDN modem died because serial ports went away... Though there are USB to Serial adapeters which could have saved your modem.
Likewise SCSI dropped out as well, but for things like scanners, a USB to SCSI adapter could still save that as well.
What Apple did was an incredibly gutsy move than only some of the PC market are trying to do, walk away from legacy connections. Apple did a great job at it, i don't know why you're complaining. Just leave the scanner attatched to the computer it was plugged into before, ore else buy one of those cheap USB scanners. It's not like you bought the computer thinking it would support your peripherals only to find it wouldn't.
Regardless of all that, I can't fathom your stance of "i won't buy a new mac until OS X is out." Does that mean they won't be a "bully" once OS X arrives? Nor will OS X revive your ISDN modem or scanner. But you'll let them off the hook and buy their hardware once they produce the software you want? Makes no sense... and granted I'm an apple fan and i still can't figure out the logic....
http://www.cgchannel.com/cgelite/dimitrisladopoulo s/G5%20Server.jpg
-Davidu
# Hack the planet, it's important.
Who says Apple Legal actually did anything. Ryan has pulled publicity stunts like this in the past where Apple supposedly requested information about future products be pulled down and no such product actually ever materializes. I think this is just another MOSR publicity stunt to attempt to give them veracity.
I used to read MOSR all the time, but I loose more and more respect for them everytime I hear about another one of Ryan's stunts. Mac rumors sites haven't had anything substantial since Jobs took the helm and clamped down on security. Since then, they've either shut down or started spewing nonsense. There are whole websites dedicated to debunking MOSR crap. They seem to have become inactive as the owners have gotten tired of pointing out the nonsense.
My favorite is still the live, secret streaming video feed they supposedly got from deep inside Apple's R&D labs. Riiiight.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
<ONTOPIC>But yeah, US-centrism is justified here.</ONTOPIC>
They hurt current Apple sales, and they keep people from buying hardware now because something better may be just around the corner.
This is the computer industry we're talking about. There is ALWAYS something better around the corner. That's why there are always jokes about how a computer is obsolete as soon as you buy it. Everybody knows that if they wait a few months, something better will be out there. Since there is always something better on the way, it doesn't really matter when you buy. You just buy when you need to buy.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
On top of that, when I use any Mac app, I can intuitively go to "Edit->Preferences" to change the behavior of the program. On my PCs, sometimes it's in "Tools->Options", sometimes "Edit->Whatever", sometimes the File menu, and so on and so forth. I really do find the interface much more consistent and smooth when using my Mac. Insert Aqua ranting here
Plus at work, I have two scanners plugged into my machine. One works with Win2K, one will not because HP hasn't updated the drivers yet - this being the third driver codebase they'll have to maintain for Microsoft OS's (the alternative being to maintain only two and abandon NT4). Out of all the cards and peripherals I've added to my aging machine over the years, I think I've had to install drivers like once. And that was only for added functionality. One thing that bugs me about PC folk in general is their automatic reaction - "Apple MUST open their hardware!" Shouldn't "freedom of choice" include "the freedom to choose a closed hardware/software architecture"? Even if you think it's stupid, at least try to understand there are some of us that like this relationship, propietary ROMs and all (Of course, those only live on in spirit, but still :).
The only thing that's tempted me to switch primary platforms recently is the constant wear of going to PC-dominated offices every day, or checking Slashdot every day to see the same constant knee-jerk "MAC USERZ ARE ALL |D|0+5!" postings plastered all over any Apple-centric article. You wouldn't believe how much crap people give you when you work at an ISP or - god help you - an MIS department. Someday they'll tell my harrowing story. :) Oh well, could be worse - I could be an Amiga user! Now they're really crazy! *duck*