Slashdot Mirror
What's Apple's Legal Basis For Blocking Cube Previews?
Iapetus asks: "Apple has sued (or threatened to sue) a number of Web sites for displaying information / pictures of products that they have not yet announced. My question is what is the legal basis for Apple forcing these sites to remove the information? It seems to me that unless the Web sites had a non-disclosure agreement with Apple, they should be free to display whatever information they can gather. I understand Apple going after the supposed employee that leaked the info, that I can see, but not going after sites that are simply displaying this information. Personally I don't believe that this has done any harm to Apple, the Mac freaks are going to buy the stuff no matter what Apple does, and no one else gives a damn anyway. So I don't see any 'material harm' being done either way." I honestly don't see the big deal here, either, and I wonder why Apple would do such a thing which only, in the end, alienates their own customer base.
-built in USB in all systems
-built in Firewire in most systems
-inexpensive wireless networking ($100 option on all systems)
-Gigabit ethernet built in to all their towers, 10/100 on cheaper models
-easy setup
-superior user interface
-induction cooling means no fans needed in the iMac or the Cube
-vastly superior color correction technology
-efficient RISC-based CPU
-groundbreaking industrial design
-maniacal attention to detail in all phases of development
-free off-line storage space via iDisk
The colors may be all that you noticed, but that says more about you than it does about them.
...how about a rainbow-colored, Soviet Union-style hammer and sicle?
Yeah, they've never done *that* before.
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
F.U.D = Fear.Uncertanity.Doubt (not distrust)
At which point, since the lawyers have been following this case, site B produces the contract they made Company A sign when the specs were handed over, which says that the specs have been provided legally and for journalistic purposes and Company A is being an incompetent whiny b*tch (yes, that is legal terminology).
First of all, Apple owns the copyright to its own pictures of its products. If pictures of the Cube surface, and those pictures were taken by Apple, they have a right to say how those pictures are used.
Second, much of this information originates from people who have signed an NDA, a legal agreement not to disclose certain information. If I break my NDA to tell you about the cool new Windows emulation box on OS X, that makes the information you have the product of an illegal action. As such, by accepting the information you probably accept some of the liability. (Maybe, this is my weakest reason).
Third, these are trade secrets until they are released products. Apple doesn't always ship products soon after secrets are released, and if another company can posess those secrets and bring a product to market based on them before Apple can, Apple has a problem. Corporate espionage is bad enough when you don't have to worry about your best projects getting outed on the Web.
Finally, rumors often hurt the sales of existing machinery. I spent years waiting for the right computer to come along because every one I read about on the rumors sites was just a little bit better than the one I was lusting after previously. I know others do. Rumors may increase lust but they don't actually increase copulation (sales)... in fact, rumors hurt sales of end-of-life machines, which still perform very well and need to be sold. Apple stands to benefit economically from a powerful 'here's our new thing' introduction than a piddling of rumors building up. Thank god both the original iMac and the Cube rumors were nothing compared to the real thing. Also, if Apple, for some reason, decides not to release something when the rumor sites say they will, people get upset and disgusted at Apple; it affects stock market performance, even! And that's not Apple's fault; it's the fault of the people who read the rumors and treated them as gospel.
So that's why I think Apple works so hard to maintain its secrecy. What legal basis they have I don't know - IANAL, and don't want to play one here.
*the photos were most likely copywrighted
In this case it's acceptable use.
*Apple asked the sites to remove and they refused. This is not a case of the person not knowing what they were doing was wrong
Apple asking them to remove it doesn't make it wrong to still display them. Well, not legally at least.
*info leaking too early could hurt competition
Then make sure it doesn't leak...
*info leaking too early could damage chances at getting a patent on the item - once an idea is in the public domain, it is no longer patentable, even if only your design is in the public domain.
The images aren't public domain - they're copyrighted by Apple. And even if they weren't, the image of something being public domain doesn't make the thing itself public domain.
*Rumors sites are fun for the fanatics, who have already decided whether or not to buy apple, but they don't actually generate new sales of products, so they aren't losing any business by shutting them down
Since when is not losing business a reason to do something?
All in all, your arguments are extremely week. Once the genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting it back. Actually, I think Apple made a huge mistake pulling out the legal guns. The pictures were only posted on Apple rumour sites, and the design was so out of the ordinary that it would have been disregarded as fan fiction had Apple not jumped. The Apple cube is now right in the middle of the spotlight, exactly the opposite of the effect they wanted to reach.
Or did they?
Could this all be a ploy to get the attention? To get Apple back in the headlines? If that's so, three words come to mind: Hook, Line and Sinker.
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
Stolen material is not covered under fair use.
But, correct me if I'm wrong, hasn't Apple posted the images themselves? So then, if the images originate from the leak, it wouldn't be fair use, but if they originate from Apple's site, it would. It's impossible to prove either.
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
are they really able to do that? Can't the websites claim some sorta thing like reports do when they can hide their sources?
Actually, 3-5 are reasons. I mean, you can sue someone because you looked up their name in a phone book and chose them, but you will be counter-sued, because you had no basis on the lawsuit. 3-5 give potential ways that Apple was losing money. If apple was losing money, they have a basis to sue. They may not win, but the countersuit wouldn't either...
Trade secrets aren't protected. But, a copywright is still a copywright, whether it is public info. Every propreitary document I have has both a confidentiality statement and a copywright at the start. It is the intellectual property of my employer. A document is copywright because you say it is, not because it is blessed by the government.
-nosilA
I think that Adam Penenberg would be the man to talk to about that. I imagine that Apple would sue the website if they refused to abide by the subpoena. (Also, they'd be found in contempt of court.)
-Waldo
-------------------
okay, IANAL, but i used to be senior internet geek for a publishing firm that owned a couple of dozen daily newspapers, and my boss *was* a lawyer.. one with a very good background in intellectual property.
that said, the idea that publishers should be free to publish anything they get their hands on, regardlesss of how it was obtained, is simply bullshit.
okay, inflammatory statement.. i apoligize to anyone i've upset. . i just wanted to put some emphasis behind my main point, which is that the original poster's opinion is incorrect. . it's 'naieve', in the technical sense, in that it's based on an incomplete undersanding of the publishing industry.
Apple's NDA doesn't cease to exist the instant someone chooses to violate it. . the websites in question didn't break the NDA themselves, but they *do* have a responsibility to steer clear of publishing information that they think may have been obtained by breaking an NDA.. or by violating someone's copyright, or by any other means that put the information under the heading of 'legally encumbered'. . that's the issue here. . the question of whether the websites broke the NDA themselves is irrelevant. . the pertinent question is whether they had reasonable grounds to assume that the information given to them *had* been obtained by breaking an NDA, and what they did about *that*.
i think we can all agree that anything related to Apple's internal development track is probably under some kind of legal protection.. trade secret, NDA, copyright, whatever. . the things Apple wants to make public come out through an identifiable PR channel. . given both of those facts, i personally think it would be hard for any of the websites in question to prove they had absolutely no reason to suspect that the information was legally encumbered. . they'd have an even harder time with questions like, "if you couldn't find an official PR memo from Apple, why didn't you contact them and ask?" . and . "did you run this information past legal before putting it online?"
the fact here is that the websites in question published information they had good reason to suspect was illegally obtained. . *that's* what they're liable for, and that's the basis of Apple's action against them. . the sites took a gamble, based on the fact that almost nobody in the computer industry takes NDAs seriously. . in this case, they ran up against one of the 'almosts', and now they have to pay up.
it's not like Apple is nailing anyone for publishing actual *rumors*, here.. you know, the unsubstantiated speculation that doesn't come with screen shots from a developer preview CD. . the sites in question were basing their trade on the publication of protected information before it was marked for release by Apple's official PR pipeline. . that's not posting rumors, that's selling leaks. . that's illegal.
rumors are okay. . leaks aren't. . Apple is just reminding everyone where the line between those two happens to fall, and that they *do* take their NDAs seriously.
History folks, look at your history. Jobs has historicaly done these types of thingsd time and time again. The Apple III debacle, The Lisa mess, his alienation and obliteration of the Apple ][ in favor of a pure Maccenteric company, his people skills with in and without his teams, his pickingof Scully, his leaving for Next, his destruction of Next, his rentry into Apple , his destruciton of third party apple machines (power cimputer, motorola, etc) and now his "Cane Munity" behavoir to his current crew.
Wether this is LEGAL or is not the point. Does it Help or Hurt APPLE as a company?
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
Another question: What if I make up really good fake pictures in Photoshop and send them to some Mac Fanatics web site. And suddenly it turns out that Apple is going to bring out a product which look almost like my fakes? Will I or the Mac web site be sued?
The American legal system is very strange.
I think Apple is sueing for one perfect reason (other than Steve Jobs having his show stolen): They don't want rumors of new products floating because they want to sell out their old stuff from the shelves before hot new things are announced.
-- bmp System Support - Vienna, Austria
You can most certainly copyright a photograph. Does Playboy not go after websites that illegally duplicate it's photographs?
Trolling is a art,
Think about this for a moment.
If someone from 20th Century leaked copies of Star Wars Episode One, should Lucas, et al, not be able to sue everyone that misuses their property? ie: the theaters that sneak preview the movie as well as just the person responsible for the leak?
Love Apple or Hate them, they have every right in the world to protect what is rightfully theirs.
Trolling is a art,
For the sake of our society, let's hope that it stays that way: societies in which people get to control what other people know, say, or think are not democracies.
You can buy a P-III with monitor, 100 megabit ethernet and firewire for one third of $799? Where?
Amelio was CEO of Apple. Jobs was CEO of NeXT. Amelio bought next, brought in steve jobs as his advisor, and was promptly displaced by him. It's not as though Jobs was running apple and next and bought his own company for hundreds of millions... Jobs was non involved with apple for YEARS before Apple bought his company. Only after that did he come back on board...
Come on... how many networks were there in 1983, when the Lisa was introduced? Besides that, he listened, because when the Lisa was cancelled and replaced by the original Mac 128k, lo and behold, there was Appletalk networking, built into every Mac ever built...
So far as the NeXT "failure"... A company hasn't failed if it fails to achieve 90% marketshare. Or even 1% marketshare. He pioneered with Apple. He pioneered with NeXT. OpenStep did eventually run on x86, Sparc, and PA-RISC (I think a few others as well, I might be mistaken, though), so he did eventually give up on the hardware philosophy when it was apparent it wasn't working.
It is working for Apple, though, so you can't call that a failure... Next sold to Apple for $400 million. I'd deposit $400 million into my bank account for a "failure" any day! And apples worth $20 billion... nice failure, again...
Were they copyrighted?
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
If Mac Freaks(tm) didn't buy the latest'n'greatest from Apple pretty much every time there was a new release, Apple would have been bankrupt years ago.
I think what you meant to say was, "If Mac users would only upgrade as often as PC users, Apple wouldn't have come so close to bankruptcy so often in the past few years."
Numerous studies (the Gartner Group used to do one every year or two) have shown that Macs remain in service, on average, twice as long as PCs.
This has doubly damaging effects. First, it means half of the revenue for "that other" platform is essentially due to the inferiority of its product! Second, it gives Apple about half the market share that its portion of the installed base represents. This is called focusing on the wrong metric, a.k.a. lying with statistics.
This nasty double standard has been used to slam Apple since the mid-80's. Back then, the universal PC (and PC press) party line was, "18% market share isn't enough for software makers to justify the effort of supporting Apple," when, due to the greater longevity of the machines, the real fact was that Mac was the platform of about 35% of software buyers. They repeated this fallacy so long, it nearly destroyed Apple. If that had happened, I'm sure all the naysayers would have felt vindicated, but even that wouldn't have made their logic correct.
I don't know why the press continues to focus only on market share. It's a silly, wrongheaded, ignorant practice, like comparing CPUs only by MHz; or cars only by HP; or bicycles only by their number of gears; or stock market performance only by points. Other factors, equally important, are being ignored.
This lemming-like tendancy of all journalists to stampede en masse down the treacherous decline of credibility into statistical oblivion is on of the biggest reasons I have no respect for the mainstream press. We have laws against conspiring to fix prices. Where are the laws against the press conspiring to commit identically flawed interpretation of facts?
Attention all journalists: The one metric you choose to emphasize is not always the right one in every analysis!
In closing, I encourage you non-Mac fans to do your own thinking independently before you resort to your favorite taunt, and not believe everything you hear from your friends.
If an entity wants to protect their copyright/trademarked/intellectual property they are often legally obliged to prove their intent by demonstrating their commitment to protect their property across the board. This means that many a large corporation will, once an infringement is brought to their attention, act to seek redress. Even if the offense seems "insignificant" or "bad marketing" to the average person.
It's sort of a use it or lose it type thing.
- sk
(OFF TOPIC) I've seen many IANAL posts, but I can't recall a single time I've seen IAAL. Are there no lawyers on slashdot? If not, the andover should hire one just to give IAALBTIMO (I am a lawyer but this is my opinion) commentary on such things....
.sig
Fellowship 9/11
Good point. The DeCSS lawsuits do, indeed, site special anti-copying provisions of the DMCA. However, the MPAA has also been using the trade secret argument. They're not limiting themselves to only one legal strategy.
Unfortunately, I haven't been following the lawsuits closely enough to discuss how the various arguments have been played out in each of the separate courts, but I do remember the trade secret argument being used, at least in the first round of hearings.
The difference is largely in how the information is obtained. The case of the G4 Cube and the case of Coke are two very different situations.
With the Cube, this was an unreleased product. Therefore, no information about it at all was (or at least, should have been) available to the public. Obviously, once they release it, people can see that it's a cube, and can tear it apart to see how it was put together. The "trade secret" protection applies in this case to the product before it's released, and afterwards, the patent protects it in that people can't just tear it apart, figure out how it works, and make their own identical machine. Trade secret status provides no protection from reverse engineering of any kind.
So look at the Coke case. Their product is very well known. Everyone knows what it takes like, and it's available on every street corner. If you can make a beverage that's exactly the same, go for it. You can sell it, and Coke can't do anything to stop you, because the "trade secret" status of its formula doesn't prevent someone who discovers it by legal means from using it.
So what's Apple's basis here? The information about the Cube must have been obtained illegally. There was no legal means of getting that information, since it was disclosed only to people who signed NDAs. And even if AppleInsider didn't sign an NDA, they're still guilty. Even if the person they got the info from didn't sign an NDA, they're still guilty. Somewhere along the line, someone violated an NDA, and that means that the information was obtained illegally, which means that they could not legally disclose it.
Of course, if they can show that they didn't know it was illegally obtained, then their guilt may be lessened or gone altogether. But that'll be hard to do, since it was an unreleased product, and they have to have realized that someone had violated an NDA to get this info out.
(As always, IANAL, so take this with a grain of salt.)
-Joe
"I honestly don't see the big deal here, either, and I wonder why Apple would do such a thing which only, in the end, alienates their own customer base."
..What customer base?
Bowie J. Poag
Bowie J. Poag
My understanding is that Apple has sued (up to 25)
unnamed individuals (John Does). The reason to
do this is to force Web sites to tell how they
obtained the information. Someone has broken a
nondisclosure agreement and that is illegal...
Looks like Slashdot's going to get sued for using an Apple logo without permission...
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
Apple more or less has always had a policy to aggressively protect their trade secrets, i.e. sic the legal boys on anyone who steals Steve's thunder.
Helium balloons want to be free.
Listen: Apple did *not* sue the rumor sites. They sent them cease-and-desist letters, then started going after the employees and/or contractors who leaked the information.
I didn't say they sued the rumor sites. I said they threatened to sue the rumor sites. I should know. I got one of the letters.
-----
And how, exactly, is this "the heart of F.U.D.?" The 'fear', I can understand, but it doesn't seem to me that Apple left much room for 'uncertainty' or 'distrust' -- by ordering the sites to pull the pictures, they basically certified them as the real deal, and no one has been brazen enough to claim that the information wasn't leaked illegally from Apple.
First off, it's "Fear, uncertainty and doubt." Second, the F.U.D. I'm refering to is the fear of prosecution from Apple, the uncertainty of the legality of their actions, let alone yours, and the doubt as to who the bad guy is, you or them.
-----
Your second-to-last paragraph makes no sense. The aggrieved parties would win, because the courts would back Apple?
Which part of " More to the point, such a class-action suit probably wouldn't win " didn't you understand?
-----
Finally, the last thing you recommend *is* an example of FUD -- by manipulating the evidence as you suggest, Apple would have been, in my mind, guilty of far worse an offense than asking some stolen pictures to get yanked from the Web.
Uncertainty and doubt? Sure, but that's what rumor sites are all about. Fear? I don't know about you, but I'm not afraid of looking at photoshop mockups of products that may or may not exist.
But thanks for playing.
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
You obviously aren't paying attention. The pictures were posted BEFORE the machines were publicly announced. The pictures were internal promotional snaps, not your usual pictures in "Popular Mechanics" of next year's car.
The pictures were leaked, they were stolen, they were secretly forwarded to someone else who did not own them. They are also intellectual property, and they would become diluted if Apple did not act on their unauthorised distribution.
Lawsuits take time to file. Also, keep in mind that the C&D letter to AppleInsider et. al. were sent before the convention. Any punative action Apple wishes to take for the action can be carried out now, since they have the time to file.
Lowmag.net
$799 is way pricey?
Forget WHY Apple would do it. That's easy: They are well-known idiots. (They make a friendly computer, but that doesn't make them smart).
Let's stick to the question: What LEGAL BASIS does Apple have for its demands?
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
The difference being that the computer at CompUSA is a piece of tangible property. The photo is not. The photo is a legitimate news item that is (should?) be covered under fair use doctrine.
Now, if someone stole a cube, and the Today show displayed it outside their studio so that all of the audience could play with it... That would be possession of stolen property.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
That's exactly what he's talking about. Someone says something that's uncomplimentary, yet with a grain of truth to it, and you liken it to personal insults.
Yet there are more of us then them.
If it was enough of an issue to people, then it becomes an issue to polititian. (sort of like why Rent Control keeps getting renewed in New York, there many more Renters then Landlords, and this is an issue that _IS_ near and dear to the voting public's heart).
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Don't laugh. A company I worked with recently tossed around the idea of a space based off-site recovery installation. (of course just what they would would be left to recover with if it got THAT serious I'm not sure).
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
On the other hand, if the website was directly profitting from those pictures (i.e. selling the pictures themselves) I think they could be in trouble (I don't think that happened though).
Is advertising revenue generated by page hits considered 'directly profiting'?
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
As others have pointed out earlier in this article, they most certainly are.
-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
The US recognizes three categories of intellectual property:
- patents, which used to cover processes for making goods, but are now somewhat broader. A patent holder is granted a patent giving them a limited-time monopoly on a process or an improvement to an existing process, in exchange for relinquishing all rights to the invention at the close of the monopoly period
- copyrights, used to protect the expression of an idea, which persist for the life of the author, or a period thereafter, but may be transferred or assigned to another party. Once the copyright lapses, the property is considered to be in the public domain, but the copyright can be recovered in certain circumstances
- trade secrets, used to protect material the inventor or author does not wish published. The law recognizes that a trade secret has value, so its theft is a criminal offense, and gives the trade secret owner recourse for trying to reclaim the secret
The law requires that the owner of the intellectual property must vigorously prosecute all known infringements of their property, or risk losing the legal protections afforded them. As long as the property owner prosecutes infringements, the law recognizes their continued ownership of the property in question.
The simple answer to "Why does Apple do this?" is that the law requires them to -- if they didn't, they risk losing the secrets, and, since it's not unusual for intellectual properties to be linked (one secret may make reference to another), if one secret is lost, it can cause loss of others as well.
All countries which participate in WIPO recognize this protection.
Just because a trade secret got disclosed once does not, legally, mean it's no longer a trade secret, as long as the trade secret holder makes a vigorous attempt to get the disclosure halted. The law, recognizing that things get stolen sometimes, gives the owner a chance to get the secret back, if possible. If the owner doesn't try to get the secret back, then the trade secret status is lost.
Obviously, the legal issues behind how, what, why, etc. Apple being able to sue for release of a trade secret are large and complex.
I'd like to make the point that, at a high-level view, their desire to hide these "leaks" has general merit. Apple is a prime example of why.
Looking at past product releases by Apple, especially during their "turn-around phase" when they finally started making money again, impressive product releases have a huge impact on their (and other) business beyond the "Cool! Wow!" marketing value.
A prime example:
Past product releases have had a significant impact on Apple stock price. Probably more so than any company I've ever tracked the stock of. Early release of Cube news could have significantly reduced the impact the news had on their stock price.
I believe it's within their right to have the ability to control this information and time it to their advantage, stock price or otherwise. The ability to hold liabel third-parties for releasing this information they know to be obtained illegally is critical in this respect.
-- I lived through the IPO Rush of '99
If I can read Berne correctly, yes, because you knew that they were coming from AppleInsider who got them through a leak... Of course, I'm not a lawyer, just a communication student.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
Actually it's been done before. Remember when Palm came out with an ice-enclosed PalmPilot? A few weeks prior, some Apple employees were carting, final prerelease ice palms around that they'd gotten direct from Palm (legally). The rumors sites went nuts after they got a report, believing that Apple would be releasing a new PDA. Crazy Meader.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
No, it's not. Those photos are taken in public, not leaked from inside. BIG difference.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
First, one is a tangible asset and the other is information: words and pictures.
This is the essence behind "Freedom of the Press". It is in the interrest of the public that news reporting agencies be allowed to publish leaked facts. Otherwise who is to decide what is a "trade secret"? The companies? certainly not. Otherwise companies could hide their dirty laundy by just calling it a "trade secret". If Apple whats a stranglehold on all of their R&D info then they need to take care of the problem inhouse not bully third party entheusiest newsites.
Not to mention that I somehow think a computer shaped like a cube, a colored computer case or a funky mouse don't amount to "trade secrets". Now if they published non obvoius technological details like a specail process for making a touchpad there might be a case.
In a roundabout way earlier reporting on their boxed-shaped computer may have saved them from potential litigation since Cobalt could have warned them earlier.
The crux of the argument will be that a protected design was knowingly released in the full knowledge that public release of the design had not been authorized.
How hard Apple will really pursue this and the degree to which the courts assent to their application of the reasoning will have to be seen.
As someone else has pointed out, it has become almost ridiculously easy to sue and this is especially grievous the case of large corporations that use litigation without merit as part of an overall market agenda.
We have met the enemy and he is us - Pogo (Walt Kelly)
Both Iapetus & Cliff ask, in effect, why does Apple even bother trying to block rumors of upcoming product announcements.
;)
The most obvious reason is that Steve Jobs is so thin-skinned that he will unleash the hounds on any mortal who dares to steal any of his precious thunder.
However, this is only partly correct. The primary reason is actually quite reasonable and pragmatic.
In Apple's darkest days, leaks were so rampant that the company's roll-out plans were often known 2 and sometimes 3 full product generations in advance. Now, even though the Mac faithful will purchase/upgrade regardless of what is released, the foreknowledge of what key new features are upcoming and when they will be released prompted many to wait. By the time that those products were released, new vistas had become visible on the horizon, thereby prompting even more waiting.
By keeping upcoming releases close to the vest, Apple encourages the "no better time to buy than the present" mentality that keeps the revenues rolling in. Furthermore, the sooner Apple can get consumers to purchase, the sooner they can get them to upgrade/replace. Anything that encourages waiting, such as product leaks, dilutes the revenue stream and lengthens the interval between purchases.
Although this explains Apple's cultural oppposition to leaks (esp. long-term), it doesn't really explain the extreme reaction to leaking a product that was scheduled for release in just weeks. I think that explanation requires returning to the jealous thunder god theory
Q:Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
A:All my autopsies have been performed on dead peop
IIRC, awhile ago whoever owned Star Trek went around the web and sent C&D orders to people running fansites who used trademarked logos and such. Sounds kind of dumb, doesn't it? They're alienating their fan-base. I assume whoever owns Star Trek had a reason for doing that and Apple has reasons for what they're doing now.
I can see it now, Apple computers, used by many in the publishing industry wins a legal battle to remove that industry's right's and freedom's to publish the news. :)
Wouldn't that be ironic
---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
You can patent something post-fanfare in America. In Europe you must patent pre-fanfare.
The legal basis is that those images were copyrighted and the people having access to them under an NDA or some other legally binding document. Someone broke his/her agreement to provide the pictures to the rumor sites.
Since it was pointed out several time, going after the news/rumors sites is silly (stupid) and they didn't break any law anyway.
Hoever going after the person(s) who broke the NDA makes perfect sense, leggaly wise.
Now whenever humanly it make sense or not, YMMV. Personally I don't think they should make a big deal of it. It's probably just Steve Jobs being his usual control freak self. However I much prefer them to go after people who break NDAs than after people who make rumor/news sites.
Car and Driver type mags do this all the time. They go out of their way to get whatever photos they can of future, _unannounced_ models, and analyze the visible changes...
Intolerant people should be shot.
I think most small guns (ie the targets of malicious lawsuits, or "slap suits as they're called) would agree, but they aren't the ones lobbying the decision makers.
paranoia. paranoia
I had thought that they were suing for lost income. When people saw how cute the cube was, they completetly stopped buying the old style computers, three days before apple was going to disclose the cube.
Thus the preemptive disclosure could have cost apple 3/365 ~ 1% of their annual sales. Now it wasn't that bad of course, not everyone wanted a cube and not everyone who would have been swayed by the leak saw it "in time".
but still
I had no idea this act existed. And I'm certainly not happy with it. The LACK of legal protection for "trade secrets" has, I dare say, encouraged innovation for as long as patents have existed (incidentally, about as long as the US has existed).
Information which is patented is effectively entered into the public domain. Sure, the inventor has an exclusive right to use it for a while, but in exchange for that right, he/she must provide complete documentation of their invention to the patent office. Those specs are then available for anyone to look at. Sure, you can't just get the shop drawings for widget X from the PTO and go out and manufacture them (at least not for, what is it, 17 years?). But you can look at how widget X is made, and that might provide you with the inspiration to develop the new, improved widget Y. This is, and always has been, the point of patent law. Guarantee the inventor an exclusive right to use their invention for a while, and in exchange they'll share their secrets with the public. Freedom and innovation for all!
Now trade secrets are a different story. Sometimes companies WON'T patent stuff because they don't want to make their secret information public, knowing they'll lose their rights to it in time. The classic example is the formula for Coke (this isn't an urban legend, is it?). It's not patented, it's just kept secret. That way, so long as Coke is careful, their proprietary beverage is theirs alone, forever.
Of course, keeping something as an unpatented "trade secret" has is drawbacks. If you discover, or somehow obtain, the formula for Coke tomorrow, you are free to sell it, make an identical Coke knock-off, etc. They've abandoned the legal protection a patent would have given them in the hopes that they could keep it a secret, and thus have exclusive rights, forever. It's a gamble that they decided to take.
But oh, what about this new trade secret law? Is it now illegal to copy a company's "trade secret"? If so, then what's a patent good for? (And why have I asked three questions in a row?) Nothing. If you can maintain an exclusive right to your product/invention indefinitely through trade secret protection, then why settle for the limited-time defense of a patent? I can't imagine too many companies opting to patent what they can just claim as a trade secret. And that, in the end, will defeat the purpose of the patent. No more public records of inventions. Innovation will certainly be hurt.
If your neighbor stole a bike from a store and sold it to you at a garage sale, did you obtain the bike through illegal means? The police will charge with with conspiracy to theft if you don't give it to them *right when they ask*. Theft is theft, no matter how much it has been dilluted.
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."
-E. W. Dijkstra
Yup. But while this might have made some amount of sense when "trade secret" meant paper documentation of some syrup and cocaine-derivative recipes in a locked and booby-trapped briefcase locked to some Coca-Cola idiot's wrist, it makes less and less sense when former trade secrets are infinitely and almost instantly copyable all over the globe, and no sense at all when the very use of those secrets for their original business purpose *requires* such copying (as is the case with software and data used by computers).
-- Life is short. Forgive quickly. Kiss slowly. ~ Robert Doisneau
Umm...if you know that you are violating trade secret laws by accepting information, you are just as liable as the person who broke the NDA.
There is no *legal* basis for Apple to muzzle a gossip site. If any of the site owners had the money for legal retainer, they could show Apple the door in minutes. However, Steve Jobs was there (well, down the block) when Adam Osborne killed Osborne I sales and a solid PC firm by showing off the Osborne II before it was anywhere near ready to ship. With this history, there's no point in talking to Steve about "legal merit" or "proportionate response".
Luke, help me take this mask off
Finally someone's understood the issue at hand. Every company requires you to sign some confidentiality/non-disclosure agreement when you join them. What Apple is achieving with this suit is that they can figure out who was involved, not only at the sites that posted them, but who inside Apple released the info. They just want names and want to set a precedent for the future. If someone hacked into their computer system (I doubt it) to get the info, they would figure that out too. I think it's perfectly fair what they're doing.
Apple's problem in a way is that it just has a cult following and in such a fast-paced market, time is everything. Why not let Apple do it's own thing? Everyone seems to like the outcome (except Cobalt), so why moan about it? It's not going to affect you one bit, unless you own one of those mac rumor sites, which have a pretty bad track record anyhow and are often technically awful. Get over it!
It seems to me that they (jobs) is just really pissed off about his surprises being ruined, and he wants to make a big deal out of it maybe to discourage people from doing this in the future.
I don't know, but I'm guessing these sights are run by people that really like apple, and we all know those types of people. Maybe this is just to get the message across that you're pissing off the company of which you are such a big fan.
But I do agree (IANAL) that they don't seem to have any basis for these lawsuits, which is why I think its all talk to "inform" the public that they don't want this.
Don't we have freedom of the press in this country? I would consider the new design of Apple's computers newsworthy, and so would Apple, judging from the fact that they issue press releases on the topic. It seems to me that reporting news, in defiance of a corporations time table for it, is not wrong, nor illegal.
Everyone is talking about the legal protections afforded trade secrets, but what about the legal protections afforded the press? Don't informational websites have a right to publish newsworthy information?
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
Repeat after me.
Anyone can sue anyone else for anything, at any time.
Continue repeating until it has sunk in.
.sig: Now legally binding!
Exactly.
:)
It's 'pursue', by the way.
Don't forget, if it's a trade secret it still doesn't matter. A trade secret doesn't mean a thing without an NDA, or if the secret was discovered through illegal means. Once it's out... it's not a secret anymore!
IANALBMUAIBHDPTB (i am not a lawyer but my uncle almost is but he didn't pass the bar =)
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I've seen quite a few IAAL posts. The thing is, even they usually share very different opinions on subjects...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
>That means that any developing nation that wants loans or trade agreements from the big boys will get strong-armed into adopting "the party line"
There's a simple solution. Don't borrow or beg for their money (grants/charity). Set up trade agreements with other developing nations. What's that? You can't maintain the same standard of living as the big boys without access to their money and markets? Too friggin bad! If I'm giving you money/access to my market then I want my IP respected.
1. Note the borrow in "Don't borrow or beg for their money". You've got a very pessimistic view of US foreign aid. I don't have facts on hand so I won't argue you on it (even though I doubt you do either).
2. So if I develop something new (antibiotic, electronics, pet rocks), I'm obligated to sell/give it to developing nations regardless of their position on IP? On what basis (besides whatever moral concepts you hold)?
"...capitalism held a truly open market as a good thing" -sure, as long as it is regulated to prevent abuses such as monopolies, corruption, and IP theft.
"...there are millions of perfectly intelligent people out there who would kill to work hundred hour weeks for half what you make..." -they'e welcome to it. When everyone has a higher standard of living it will help create bigger markets and bigger economies and more jobs. It's not a zero sum game.
could someone moderate this up or could the author please post this higher up in the hierarchy?
I think this is an important post and should be more accessible.
AFAIK, Apple hasn't actually sued any journalism sites, just sent vaguely threatening lawyer letters, so this is really in a grey area. I doubt if there is any law that specifically prohibits this. Of course, "anyone can be sued for any reason," so I suppose that a web site could sue Apple for trying to intimidate them. But they'd probably have to prove that Apple knew that they had no foundation for legal action, and that is at least debatable. After all, if a web site was somehow directly involved in the theft of Apple secrets or documents, they would certainly be liable, and if Apple suspected that this was the case, they would have reasonable grounds to sue. Besides, the whole point is that these sites can't afford to get into a legal wrangle with Apple, which is why nobody dared to call Apple's bluff, if bluff it was. The bottom line is that there is simply no way of preventing a large, wealthy firm such as Apple from throwing its weight around in this way.
Steve Jobs and Lars Ulrich are LOVERS.
Steve:Oh Lars,your chubby is great but,it won't help me sell any of my plastic computers.
Lars:Just keep your product in the public eye like we did.We ripped off the business model of a defunct band called the Sex Pistols.Y'see we create controversy by busting EVERYONES chops over
mp3s and napster.Since there really is no such thing as "bad publicity"at this level of corporatism,we just continually keep generating publicity by staying in the news.Its no problem,you just use your enemy to do your dirty work.The media,everyones enemy,just feed on this stuff and spread it to the people,spining in their own agenda.The people,who are generally cattle and beneath my contempt,can be picked off individually as examples.Then your name will ring frome one end of commerce to the other like a slapback echo set on infinity.Your picture will appear everywhere.Did'ja see my picture in the senate?It looked like a panel out of "The Last Supper".You cant buy that kind of publicity,just the thing for a foundering computer company trying to convince the public that proprietary is good.You could tell those suckers day is night and they'd buy it.Name recognition is
everything.Our album is selling like Pet Rocks in the mid '70s.
Steve:Oh Lars you're so cool.I'll do it.I'll start a "security leak" and throw a big tantrum.Here,have this I-mac as a token of my extreme.
Lars:hmmm...it sits a little low for comfort.OK bitch,get doggy style and lube up,Im gonna mount this computer in the hole my chubby bored.
Steve:Uhhhhhhnnnnnggh....ooooooo..mmmmmm
Lars:Shit!You swallowed it,whats Richard Geres number,he'll know what to do.
Steve:No he won't,the hamster thing was just made up publicity.You can just yank it out by the cat5 and power cable,but not just yet,the drive door keeps opening and closing.Its kinda groovy.
(well,maybe they're not lovers,but they do seem to be in bed together,eh?)
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Just about anything Apple does can probably be traced back to idiocy. These are the people who are trying to push their machines on high end gamers and artists, and yet insist on providing oddly shaped, undersized mice WITH ONLY ONE BUTTON.
Don't try to find logic in the things that Apple does. The people at Apple do things because they have a few bright engineers developing some stuff and a few dozen idiots managing everything.
Yeah buddy...$799 (LIST) is way too much money. ^_^
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Last I heard the count of US Navy vessels that had to be towed back into port because NT locked up their control systems was at two; a cruiser and a frigate, I think. I know, I know, small sample yada yada... but don't you think it's hilarious? (Scary for the crew and their families no doubt)
More OT, I think it's precisely the fact that they get the job done year after no-upgrade year which accounts for the loyalty to Mac gear. Apple's marketing doesn't play that up enough, imo.
EMP bombing still won't get rid of the T-shirts.
=)
I've seen a number of people skim the issue but misunderstand the implications. US patent law states that an inventor has one year to patent something that has been published (or made for sale). If they do not file an application within that year they lose the rights to patent it, as (according to the law) it has become public knowledge.
:)
This premature publication of information that has probably been catogorized as a 'trade secret', has also probably been copyrighted and requires permission of the owner (i.e. Apple) to be published.
Essentially, they are probably pissed off that their schedule is all fubared. And they are probably attempting to retain any trademarks or copyrights they have by "vigilantely defending them".
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't work for Apple, so I'm guessing.
I went to Fry's today for lunch (mmm... new Leatherman ;) and saw a big poster for one of these cubes there. Kind of odd for Apple to get into such a huff over these being shown only a very short bit before they start their own ads, hrm? Or is Fry's showing off illegal ads now? ;)
Hold on a minute, I don't remember Apple sueing any web sites! According to MacCentral,
Sources indicate that the person or persons named in the suit are possibly employees of Apple and/or Apple's trusted third-party developers -- individuals who had access to Apple's trade secrets.
In other words, the people Apple is actually sueing signed contracts with Apple not to divulge trade secrets. So there's the basis for the suit. The rumor sites that posted the leaked pics and info were threatened, but never sued, as far as I know. I agree that Apple would have little basis to sue web sites that had made no agreements with Apple. So their threats were out of line, but they haven't actually gone as far as sueing. Please post if I've missed something.
I'm curious about how publishing the secret Apple Pics compares to publishing spy pictures of auto companies prototype cars. Car magazines publish spy shots of cars all the time I believe. Anyone have any good ideas about this?
Sorry, but I think Apple just wants a piece of the action.
:).
Everyone who's anyone nowadays is sewing someone or is being sewed.
An advertisement, put in several nationwide distributed papers, costs hundreds of thousands.
Sew someone (anyone!!!) as an ICT company and the paperazzi are all over your *ss. FOR FREE (like in beer
The only thing you need to pay are the lawyers, and if you don't mind loosing they come cheap. at least a h*ll of a lot cheaper then "TV seconds".
You can't buy the nationwide and global attention you get from a lawsuit. It's crued, it's simple, and it's very effective.
That seems pretty ridiculous, and I can't believe it's right. Most companies publicize their products before they're released. If you're Microsoft, you publicize it years in advance.
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
It astounds me that Slashdot continues to provoke the armchair attorneys with microanalyses of legal issues. It's great to encourage literacy of the legal system, but it's getting a little silly with the hard-core pro-Napster sentiments that are regularly provoked and now the popularity of anti-Apple sentiments that smack of the same vigor that the anti-Microsoft posting did during the MS trial.
In repsonse to "look-and-fee" this is a trade dress issue and while in the mid-eighties, the legal climate didn't support the idea that computers could even be proprietary much less protected IP (though there were exceptions for outright code theft ala Apple Computer, Inc., vs. Franklin ) the current legal climate would likely have yielded a trade dress protection for MacOS versus Windows. Windows, clearly, was attempting to blur the product distinctiveness and confuse the GUI issue with the design or the Windows GUI. That makes it and infringing product. Period. In the eighties, MacOS was simply found to not be entitled to that kind of legal protection, right or wrong. Today, iMacs have been protected from products that are clearly designed to capitalize on the iMac success. Legitimate competition is OK, theft of trade dress isn't, at least in the current legal climate.
Also, prerelease of product information can be very damaging to corporate sales. The leakage of Adobe's Photoshop 6 info on MacNN's AppleInsider site two months ago has undoubtedly delayed purchases of new copies of Photoshop 5.5 pending the release of 6. Companies guard their new product data to avoid being toasted like Osborne was back in the early eighties where early announcement of the next computer model killed current sales and the company subsequently tanked due to lack of revenues. Had Apple not released the cube at MacWorld SF (which was a possibility and since the machine hasn't yet started shipping a Seybold announcement would have made more sense) the leaked information could very well have damaged sales for other G4 macs. That's certainly materially damaging as leaked information often is.
Just my grumblings. I'm not a lawyer, but I spend many days buried in Intellectual Property issues, so I have some fluency in them.
It seems to me the leaking caused the Apple Cube to get much more publicity that it would have any other way (short of going door to door showing it off). Car manufacturer's claim to be against spy photos even when during an interview a representitive for an automaker said that if there was no longer anyone getting spy shots that they'd probably hire someone to spy on themselves.
It's publicity, Apple shouldn't fight it.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
In addition to the reasons already suggested, everyone should take into account Apple's distribution channel. Apple is very unlike most PC companies in the way it prices and positions new products.
When Apple introduces a new product, demand for the current line plummets, due to several factors. Apple's product updates usually are enhancments combined with price cuts. Add the fact that the mac market is unique in that there are legions of mac nuts who absoutely must have the newest box, and Apple has every reason to keep their cards close to their vest.
Apple needs to manage consumer demand and the supply in the channel very carefully. Being a one-horse show (sole vendor) makes that need all the more acute.
Loose lips CAN cause financial hardship for the company. This is a strong motivation for Apple to pursue legal action, although it may not be the way they position the lawsuit.
This may not constitute legal grounds, but it certainly is a strong motivation. In the end, any company with that incentive can dream up a myriad of legal postures to protect it's bottom line.
Still, in the end, it's probably just as much about Steve not wanting to have his hand shown to the world.
Absolutely true. Even though it would seem that if everyone knows a "trade secret" it would become common knowledge, this is not the case. US intellectual property law does in fact protect this, and for a good reason. If a law is broken (here, theft) to reveal a secret, it is not the company's fault that it got into the open, it's the fault of the law enforcement agency. Therefore, the secret cannot be used even if known. Now, the company in question must take reasonable precautions to enforce their security, but security can't be perfect, after all. For an example, if the super-secret recipe for Coke or Pepsi was revealed, a competitor may not use that information, at least not directly. Theoretically, Coke would be run out of business simply due to the theft actions of a smart insider ... it wouldn't make sense, and so the law protects the company by preventing others from using that information.
The lesson here, kiddies, is don't sign things that you don't intend to live up to.
I don't think that they have any legal basis for suing. Has anyone ever seen a publication like Motor Trend get sued for printing spy photos of upcoming automotive models?
How you see the world is how the world sees you.
You're absolutely right. *smacks forehead* Of course, if you burn out every piece of electronics on the planet, there won't be anything to type it in on, much less compile it...
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Yow. Now I understand why the DVD Consortium is making such a big fuss. If they can use the DMCA to argue that reverse-engineering is illegal, then they get these protections under law, even though it'd take EMP-bombing the entire planet to get rid of every instance of the DeCSS code. Scary, huh?
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
I just had a thought. If a website, let's say AppleInsider, was to post an extensive verbal description of unannounced Macs, but no pictures, would they still get hit with a cease and desist?
I wouldn't be surprised if they did, because Apple Legal, being a largely separate entity from Apple, has nothing better to do with their time.
"There are a very large number of reasons why this is legal"
Of course it's legal, as all lawsuits are. We just hate the idea of them actually winning it.
"*Apple asked the sites to remove and they refused. This is not a case of the person not knowing what they were doing was wrong."
Is NOT doing whatever Apple tells you wrong? I for one don't see this as a black and white issue.
So photos got leaked from somewhere 1 day before they were officially released. The ones displaying the photos are not at fault. Only those who took the photos without asking (as was posted earlier.
-
As far as I can see in this, it relates to something I once read about (sorry, no source). Basically the only I can think of that Apple can sue or complain about is the copyrighted pictures being used. However, there are people that legally make money by finding out where car manufacturers try out new car designs, take pictures, and then sell them to magazines. Car manufacturers have no recourse to sue these people or the magazines because of these pictures. One of the only differences I can see here is that the pictures themselves were taken by Apple and their property.
-- Wolfpup
"A man whose circumstances went beyond his control." -- Styx
It's quite simple really; Apple doesn't have and doesn't need to have a valid legal basis to file a lawsuit against the operators of the websites. Their objective is not to win or to recover damages; most such frivolous lawsuits are dismissed. Rather, they seek to stifle public discourse for economic benefit. More generally, this is known as a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). Normally, SLAPPs are brought by companies against protest groups, individuals, or public interest lobbyists on matters such as environment concerns, real estate developement, and zoning regulations. By transforming what is essentially public debate on issues of wide-ranging concern in a protected public forum into a legal discussion on the *effects* of the debate on the issue, rather than on the issue at hand. Luckily, you can protect yourself by some simple steps:
:-)
-Expressing yourself in a Q-forum (quintessentially public forum) such as a newspaper
-Make sure that your statements of fact are true
-Seek legal advice *before* taking action that may result in a SLAPP
-Move to California or another state with an anti-SLAPP law
Click here for more information
or here
We've seen this before. A certain company has a loyal following that keeps them in business, but they're still not satisfied, and decide to turn round and screw those who supported them. Reminds me of Metallica, and now Apple basically seem to be doing the same thing. Surely they're hurting themselves rather than helping? The behaviour disgusts me personally, and any chances they had of my custom are out of the window...
That reminds me of a situation that I had to deal with about a year ago as a Gaim developer. Our old logo was of tux, with the AOL running man hugging him and an AOL logo kind of faded in behind them. We thought that it'd show the "AOL/Linux" thing pretty well. Anyways, after the whole Microsoft/AOL battle happened AOL had their lawyers send us a letter asking us to remove their logo from ours. Of course, they had every right to do this since we didn't get their explicit permission to use their images. This, still, is an example of a larger company using their layers to make a smaller party conform. We removed it immediately and left a nice little hole in our logo for a couple releases with a "Removed by Request" in place of the yellow man and the AOL symbol. Peace, all, and happy hacking.
---
Rob Flynn
---
Rob Flynn
Pidgin
Thats exactly what I said. They only work on the PPC chip. None of those apple linux distros work well on anything that isn't a PPC chip. Even BeOS works on PPC. After that, it is guess work. Apple released the specs to the PPC. Linux and BeOS are in the same boat when it comes to mac development. Apple won't release specs for anything past the PPC chip. And when did this fictitous NDA get signed? Do you know who the leak was?
Pax Digitalia
Warning to mods: this is mildly off-topic. Do what you will
Apple is very stupid when it comes to business. The PC platform has numerous quality OS's that its users can use, reliably, for free or for cost. The Macintosh platform has one OS that can be used, reliably, at cost. All progress with alternative OS's has been at the expense of hackers, and companies such as Be Inc. I would love to buy an iMac, IF I could load BeOS on it.
Apple has also failed to keep it's users in mind when it comes to the actual design of it's products. Why they would omit a floppy disk drive from their iMac is beyond belief. They have made claims that their chips are great. This is true, if one looks at the FLOPS that it can turn. But the speed is restricted to 500 mhz, app. And they have also ignored their users conerns with the mouse.
Whilst one can understand their wish to remain different from the rest of the tech market, the use of a very bad ergonomic design is ludicrous. Once again, it took the actions of independants to rectify their errors.
And now, they have kicked up their legal department. Suing, or threatening to sue, for any number of trivial things that, in the normal world, would be considered ludicrous. Posting a scoop isn't illegal. Stealing Apple's thunder must be though, right? Has Apple Legal ever done anything smart? The Alto/Mac/Microsoft suit was ludicrous, but not damaging to it's users. Now they have graduated to attacking those who give them their success.
Microsoft may have been a monopoly. But what do you call the actions of Apple? BeOS has stopped development of a Mac version at the PowerPC chip, because Apple refuses to deliver the information needed. Aren't these the actions of a company that has forgotten its users?
Maybe they will redeem themselves with MacOS X.
Pax Digitalia
Apple seized upon a great thing, in the area of actually making computers attractive looking. Oddly enough, it seems to be the case that a lot of mac converts were brought over merely becuase you could buy a computer that matched the decor.
If this, thier advantage in the area of asthetics, is to be thier biggest advantage, then they need to keep thier secrets for as long as possible, and thus put the rest of the industry as far behind them as possible. They apparently have some clever designers in there, nad they are trying to capitalize on this work as much as possible.
So, is there harm? Yes, in allowing other companies to follow closer in Apple's wake. Is this harm qauntifable/actionable/suable? Probably not.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
The laws are meant specifically to cover corporate espionage. Those are usually pretty clear cut as to who is in the wrong. For journalism, however, things get trickier and the waters muddy. Publishing info obtained in violation of somebody else's NDA about future product releases is a very sensitive area. What if another company worked to leak that info to the paper's for its own benefit? Or, on the other hand, how can it be determined how the info travelled from inside to outside the corporation? What if a waiter overhears a dinner conversation between corporate employees, does not know the info is covered under NDA, and tells his friend in journalism the juicy details? Still, if you have a leaking ship, lawsuits are one way to help plug up the holes. I got the impression the info about the Cube was deliberately leaked by those under NDA and without Apple's permission (from reading the rumor sites myself in advance of the Cube's intro). Sueing the forumns where the info was published could serve to allow discovery (investigation) of who passed on the info, depending on how things go... It is hard to say I like anything which might stifle journalism, but I hardly expect these 'news' sources to cooperate with Apple without legal pressure. A judge really needs to decided how far Apple can go with its investigation, balancing the law referenced above with freedom of the press considerations. And that is exactly what will happen. Wait to see how it plays out. It may not be as bad as it seems.
--
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
Company A give their latest specs for "the killer consumer product of the century" to be reviewed to website B.
Website B puts up a review that basically says "This thing is trash, company A must think their costumers are all fools, just look at these specs"
Company A retaliates by sending the a letter to website B saying something like: "Those specs are a trade secret, some nasty PR employee has leaked them, and whe're going to presecute him/her to the full extend of the law. Remove those specs from your site or we will presecute you too"
What a great censurship weapon
Interesting. Now when I want what amount to patent protection that lasts FOREVER all I need to do is this.
1. Treat the invention as secret.
2. Make it appear it has been illegally leaked.
3. Make sure it gets all over the Internet.
Tada. Infinite life protection of the idea. Like a patent which never expires. It will forever be illegal for anyone else to ever use it.
Okay, but that's fraudulent, since I'd be leaking it. But it would really be a win-win situation for some company which had its trade secret exposed. They'd get the infinite protection and it would be legal.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
The TidBITS piece is completely on target and well-written. It explains NDA's, the economics of product release cycles, and why you might want to hold people to the legally binding contracts that they choose to sign.
Apple is going to bring unix to mainstream desktops long before linux does, the "linux community" should forge ties to the "apple community", whatever and whoever they are exactly, this kind of post doesn't help and shows the ignorance of some of the slashdotters who usually value computer knowledge (maybe those types are just not posting on this topic).
who said I was joking?
Anyone want to help me fund a spacestation Colo? would be nice to not be restricted to those earthly rules and at a $60 billion dollar price tag who could resist? of course teh onsite tech support takes a few weeks to plan and might cost a extra few hundred million but who is counting?
"They simply have to declare that it's a trade secret." Again, this is not correct. A trade secret is defined (I'm paraphrasing here) as information from which a business derives an economic benefit by virtue of that information not being known to competitors and which is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. If the information isn't really something that the business benefits from, it isn't a trade secret. A business can't just "declare" something a trade secret, although they frequently attempt to do so. Think about the alternative: a world where you spend years generating a customer list and then a disgruntled employee copies your list along with the prices you charge those customers, sells it to your competitor, and there isn't a god damn thing you can do about it. your competitor goes to your customers, offers them a lower price, and suddenly the business you spent years building is gone. Trade secret laws aren't primarily about free speech. They are about regulating businesses.
...since it's a federal law, it makes it a crime against the US and not against Apple.
No neccessarily true....if I cannot be sued for breaking a law, then how come there are cases where people have to pay damages in a civil case?
OJ comes to mind. He was found guilty, but was sued in a civil case and was found responsible for the deaths of those 2 folks. Does this make any sense, he (according to the court) didnt do it, but he's still responsible?
I know this may change from state to state, but I'm willing to bet that there's a way this can happen on the federal level too.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.-Franklin
Of *course* there is a reason for this foolish action that will only alienate hard-core fans. Steve Jobs (as probably a lot of people at Apple, peons seems to unconciously follow their leader) is a fucking ego-maniac. Sure, nobody gave a damn that this was known beforehand, they still cheered when the official announcement came. All that happened was Jobs lost some of the hoopla his mind feeds upon. What do expect from a company run by a man like him?
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
Desire is not an occupation.
What?
... get it?
They are original pictures and "Property of Apple Computer, Inc." -- that means you can't use them unless you get permission from Apple. Because, the photos and photo subject(s) were Apple's property since they took a picture of something they created so they own that picture
The legal basis for the lawsuit is simple:
Theft... of thunder
This is supposed to be great art. So why does it look like a bunch of decapitated naked people? -- Calvin
I don't know if anyone here recalls that Apple got shafted from Microsoft (of course after Xerox PARC got shafted by Apple :) over the GUI concept. I think they've got every right to be a little edgy about anything under development.
:). Intellectual property is a powerful... dare I say commodity. The point is, if competitors get a hold of one's secrets, they can easily be turned against themselves as seen with the GUI saga of yesteryear.
We don't know about what other corporations are researching. Why? Because their future and livelyhood rests on their new products/ideas. I'd definitally want to make sure it is safe and I'd pay through the nose for it too (if I had the fincancial means to do so
My 2 cents.
Unless, of course, the product is RSA.
There can be very significant material harm to a company caused by premature disclosure of product information. For example, Osborne had a very successful computer back in the early days of the PC. The company announced that it would come out with a faster version in the future, and its sales promptly tanked, because customers were waiting for the new machine. Osborne went out of business as a result. While Apple is very unlikely to go out of business as a result of product plan leaks, the leaks do hurt the company's ability to build suspense and interest in its upcoming products, and to focus customer attention on trade shows such as MacWorld, where many new product announcements are often grouped together. Furthermore, as evidenced by some of the postings on various Apple rumor sites, the details of prematurely announced products are often inaccurate and may alter customer expectations in ways which can hurt the company.
Apple lost that battle primarily because they had licensed part of the Mac OS to Microsoft and it was at least arguable that that license covered the features MS ripped. I can no longer recall if they got a final decision from a court, or settled after they say the trend during the battle, but it wasn't that they couldn't sue for "look and feel" but that they had a license issue that muddied the waters that made the difference.
In the "real world", the "look and feel" of a business, its "trade dress", is protectable. In the case of Taco Cabana vs. Two Pesos, the courts said that one chain's building looked too much like another's, despite the fact that one was bubble-gum pink and the other was a brilliant turquoise. I guess justice is blind, after all.
This notion of "trade dress" applies to any distinctive appearance that serves to identify the source of goods - products or services - which, to come full circle, is how Apple kicked the PC "iMac look-alikes" out of the market.
Not quite right, for the U.S. The law, 35 USC 10 102 defines when publication affects the ability to patent. In a nutshell, in the U.S. you lose the patent if:
The 2nd rule is only a USA rule, which is why RSA was a valid patent in the US but not in (most of) the rest of the world... So in the rest of the world, if a "leak" publicizes a patentable invention, someone could lose a patent, but IMHO most (but not all) product "leaks" don't disclose enough about the invention to potentially void a patent...
The "look and feel" lawsuit, which is the one we're discussing, was ended by an adverse decision in court in June of 1993, (had to look it up) see this page. Apple also lost their appeal to the Ninth Circuit in 1994 or 1995, so this case can hardly be said to have been "going well"...
By the time of the $150 million investment in Apple by Microsoft, 1997, Apple had some other patent suits going againsr MS, the Quicktime one was definitely going well for them if memory serves, but the "look and feel" suit was essentially dead and buried.
There are two points that I'm curious about here: 1. Does the new, expanded definition of "trade secret" and "conversion of secrets" affect the long-standing practice of reverse engineering? Is there much legal precendent built up yet to show what the limits of the definition of a trade secret are? 2. How does the Department of Justice go about pursuing a citizen of another country who is perceived to have violated this act? I'm not sure if this is the act that the author of DeCSS is being prosecuted under, but I've always wanted to know more about how the MPAA or the Justice Department succeeded in getting Norwegian authorities to arrest him, and how prosecution is being carried out.
Thats stupid, they should have to prove that you DID have contact with their proprietary info.
Sometimes American law makes me want to move to some nice North Pacific island chain.
No, you sound like a public relations flack. "Jobs has synergy with his engineers"? Oh please...
Let's count the 'power words' here, shall we?
Synergy
Resurgence
Revitalize
Innovative
Creating an experience
Artists as well as engineers!
Change the world, again and again
Passion drives invention
I'm truly impressed, you should see if their marketing department has any job openings.
--
Dyolf Knip
My question is, why hasn't Jello sued them over their iMac line? THERE'S some serious trademark infringement! They could sue them over "look and feel", too! Hmm they are made of that nice bullet-proof carbonate (don't try this at home kids)... not quite squishy and jiggly. Have you ever seen graphite jello? (dog biscuits maybe)
Listen: Apple did *not* sue the rumor sites. They sent them cease-and-desist letters, then started going after the employees and/or contractors who leaked the information.
And how, exactly, is this "the heart of F.U.D.?" The 'fear', I can understand, but it doesn't seem to me that Apple left much room for 'uncertainty' or 'distrust' -- by ordering the sites to pull the pictures, they basically certified them as the real deal, and no one has been brazen enough to claim that the information wasn't leaked illegally from Apple.
Your second-to-last paragraph makes no sense. The aggrieved parties would win, because the courts would back Apple? Finally, the last thing you recommend *is* an example of FUD -- by manipulating the evidence as you suggest, Apple would have been, in my mind, guilty of far worse an offense than asking some stolen pictures to get yanked from the Web.
First of all, it's not charity. Every *loan* that gets made to developing countries gets paid back, and they get charged interest rates that you or I would think were usary. Why? Because otherwise, the local economies would overheat, and self-destruct in a matter of months. The only true "charity" that most developing nations get is the occasional batch of disaster relief, which means patrols from UN soldiers, shipping containers full of unusuable perishable goods and expired pharmaceuticals, and news crews taking pictures.
Second of all, trade agreements with other developing nations don't get you antibiotics, or construction machinery, or electronics. As for "giving" them access to "your" market, I had been under the impression that capitalism held a truly open market as a good thing. Maybe you're just intimidated, because there are millions of perfectly intelligent people out there who would kill to work hundred hour weeks for half what you make, and they're all scrambling for their piece of "your" market.
Very good points. Now how do we get them to take an iBook to the park. :)
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
I didn't know that. What I really want to know is what constitutes a trade secret?
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
What would happen if a leak like this got to say the New York Times, and they published it. Apple wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Take magazines like Car & Driver or Motor Trend for example. Both magazines go out of their way to get advance information on new models from Auto manufacturers, and when they do they print it. _Most_ of the auto maufacturers accept this as simply part of the game. In fact, the maufacturers will do all kinds of crazy things to make the car look completely different during testing, in case a journalist's camera should spy the new car. In my eyes there is no difference between the two.
I think its about time that online magazines/newspapers are afforded the same protections as their offline cousins.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
I may be a little confused here, but I thought that the basis of the MPAA's crusade to block the distribution of DeCSS was based on the provision of the DMCA stating that technology designed to circumvent anti-piracy measures is illegal.
I'm afraid that these two issues are not the same thing. Then again I could just be confused.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
What constitutes a trade secret? (I really want to know)
Is the publishing of generic information in an online magazine considered a misappropriation of trade secrets or journalism?
I lean towards journalism, but then again I don't make the laws.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
But this would require a US Attorney to file criminal charges - can you see this ever happening? A civil remedy can be prosecuted by Apple - as the injured party, they're in the best position to decide if its worth their time. The government, OTOH, hasn't been injured in any way and barring real industrial espionage, I wouldn't expect this law to much used.
Don't forget that Apple announces new models and price cuts at every MacWorld convention, and everyone who follows the company knows this. I imagine that mail order sales dry up in the weeks coming up to the convention anyway.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
, it is necessary to give the copyright holder credit for the information on display
The pictures had something like "(c)AppleInsider.com" on them. There was no mention that they were Apple owned pictures.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
You work at CompUSA and your friend Al, who owns Al's Computer Shack, wants to sell Whiz-Bang computers but isn't certified to sell new Whiz-Bang products and can't afford them anyway. Being a kind and generous person, you grab a few new Whiz-Bangs from the back room at CompUSA and take them over to Al's Computer Shack and say, "Hey Al, I just stole these brand new Whiz-Bang computers for you." Al then goes on to sell the computers, knowing that they are stolen property.
A few days later CompUSA connects you to the theft, fires you, and notifies the police. The police find out about Al, and both of you are beaten senseless and thrown into jail. When you go to trial, you don't really have any defense thanks to the security cameras that taped the entire theft. Al can claim that he didn't know that the computers were stolen, but he would have to be completely brain dead not to realize that half a dozen brand new factory sealed Whiz-Bang computers obtained from some low-life CompUSA ex-employee were stolen property. After the jury hears the message found on Al's answering machine that includes you saying that you had some stolen computers, Al is found guilty on all charges and spends a few years learning what it is like to be a prison bitch.
So how does that apply to Apple suing people who distributed information obtained through a violation of an NDA or other such agreement? It doesn't really, there are other laws that apply in that case.
This is interesting but since it's a federal law, it makes it a crime against the US and not against Apple. It doesn't give Apple the right to sue anyone (in civil court) but only gives a federal prosecutor the right to bring charges against a party based on evidence (typically gathered in an investigation by the FBI).
If you like the ancient Chinese stuff, by the way, any of the major Asian art shows these days displays collections superior to most museums - over 90% of it moved illegally from China, and much of it stolen from museums and archaeological sites there to begin with. When China asks for items to be returned (for example, a major statue that recently showed up in a Japanese museum), it rarely gets them. And we complain when the Chinese make a few copies of Windows?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
"Why should anyone but the leakee be responsible for a corparation's inability to keep its secrets?" Answer: Corporate espionage, for one example. If Joe Blow leaves AMD and -happens- to be hired by Intel, Intel should be responsible for publishing or using any trade secrets Joe brings with him.
I meant that Intel should be responsible in the sense of being accountable...that is, a company should be liable for intentionally acquiring another's trade secrets.
This has nothing to do with Transmeta. We're talking about the shape of the box here.
don't believe the hype
Mac enthusiasts are freaks. You just helped to prove that. There's a difference between hurtful stereotyping and humorous generalization.
don't believe the hype
Apple probably planted the info to get free publicity. Filing lawsuits against un-named individuals just turns up the the free PR meter...
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
Like most exceptions, the fair-use laws imposes limits on the amount of material you may use for the purpose. This is why most news organizations obtain permission to use a picture in a publication before the publication goes to press. Ditto TV press in the use of non-in-house film.
In the case of criticism, the picture you purloined had damn well better be necessary in order for your criticism to hold up -- the "bar" is different from judge to judge, and the wise journalist/critic anticipates that he will get "Hang 'em Harriet" for a judge and selects and uses images accordingly.
I'm not sure what is the status of illegally distributed photographs vis a vis fair use. I'm sure, though, that Apple didn't provide permission, let alone credits, for the embargoed pictures that were shown on the Web site.
When you live on the cutting edge, expect to bleed.
But is Apple overreacting to the situation? Perhaps it is a bit of an extreme measure for them to take. But think about this, if the headline read "Leak at Apple Costs Them $2 Billion, Apple Sues Employees" we would all have a different view on Apple's actions. Although the information on the Cube was so close to release that nobody could have realisticly stolen the concept before it was publicly released, if it were something else perhaps it wouldn't have been. Responsability for determining what information is acceptable for public release and what information isn't is a decision that only parties within the company entrusted with that responsability should make. Apple needs to establish that it means business when it comes to enforcing their corperate policy. I think that they might have gotten off easy with this one. Had the headlines actually read that they lost $2Billion, the defendants would be in a lot deeper sh*t than they are now. Above all, Apple, like all large (and small) companies, needs to maintain control over their property and ideas. Remember, big companies never loose money, they just pass the cost along to us. At least they're not suing their fans for looking at the pics on the rumor pages ;)
This post sais a little more on my opinion about this.
--I assume full responsibility for my actions, except the ones that are someone else's fault.
And now we're goddam talking about them again. Huh.
-fff-
(I like Macs, BTW)
HELLO? What am I missing here? Aren't all these pictures and info on Apple's site right now? Seems like it's been released to me...
Come on, now you know the real reason for this lash out.
When the iMacs came out, there was a whole lot of companies which tried to (but failed to do) copy the style of iMacs.
Maybe they don't want something like that this time.
Well, if they hadn't filed these lawsuits, there would be one less thing to keep us talking about Apple today, wouldn't there?
Every time a company can get it's name in a headline or a discussion this is likely a good thing for that company-- especially an internet/computer company. Name recognition is important. People going to the Apple site to see what all this G4 cube fuss is about are a lot more likely to see an Apple sales pitch than those who read an article about the latest web-enabled-wireless-toenail-clipper from Motorola.
The expense to companies the size of Apple for a legal team is relatively fixed. They have x number of lawyers, to whom they will pay $z each year no matter if those lawyers are very busy, or sitting in their offices reading slashdot. The incremental expense of these sorts of lawsuits is negligible for them, so they are able to use them to generate publicity.
Sure, they may also have legitimate complaints in some of these lawsuits, but there is actually an incentive here that favors legal activity.
I do not have a signature
I wonder why Apple would do such a thing which only, in the end, alienates their own customer base.
I keep saying this, but nobody listens. In truth the fault lies with the Apple share holders, who keep putting up with the policies of a control freak who appears set on putting his company out of business.
Anyone who thinks they are normal has to be a freak.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
A lot of people on the web are talking about this issue, its getting to be big news. Maybe thats Apples intention. You know what they say "Any publicity is good publicity."
Making these high profile moves to cover up these details is just making me more interested in finding out about this very cool looking Mac.
If you ask me, they should bring out a games console (or at least design one for a console company) as I'm sure it would be the sexiest console on the market. I'd buy one just to put in my room and look slick.
==============================
==============================
PROUD to be GEEK
Unfortunately, as Apple found out in their suit against Microsoft over Windows 95, you can't sue over "look and feel."
---
Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
Much better. Next time I'll try not to be so serious! :-)
---
Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
As far as I understand, the biggest issue is concerning patent rights. If the product is publiicized prior to release, it cannot be patented...I vaguely remember reading something on that...I guess it means that Apple is sueing for patent damages...
and if you broke into my house to get them, it still qualifies as fair use?
You're missing the point. Nobody's saying Apple doesn't have the right to sue the people who 'stole' the pics.
This incident parallels the Pam-Tommy tapes. In the end, the judge said that even though the tapes were stolen in the first place, their original owners could do nothing to stop them from being published.
Browser? I barely know her!
luckman
luckman
I don't involve myself with flames, much less know how to bait one.
luckman
luckman
I don't involve myself with flames, much less know how to bait one.
Did you even read the question?
It's not "why did Apple want to sue?"
It's about "what legal right do they have to sue?"
So save your ranting about Jobs for another time and place.
There are a very large number of reasons why this is legal
Point 1 and 2 are reasons (whether they are correct points or not, i dont know -- IANAL) why this would be legal, points 3-5 are NOT reasons why this would be legal. Actually I have not seen any solid information yet. Does anyone know if this is leagal or not? -- one person says "It's illegal: copyright violation" another says "leaked trade secrets are not protected under copyright laws". Does anyone have an informed opinion, or are all these just opinions?
*Rumors sites are fun for the fanatics, who have already decided whether or not to buy apple, but they don't actually generate new sales of products, so they aren't losing any business by shutting them down
Actually, the business they may be loosing would be those very fans that read the fansites... The fear is alienating your user base. Not alienating the uninformed user.
Obviously I should research what I say before I say it! Times like these, everyone sees how far my head is up my, well... At least I got a karma point for the message.
Now Apple has to show damages. How are they going to pull that off? Appleinsider said nothing bad about the machine, they only displayed pictures. Assuming they weren't doctored, they could do no more harm to Apple's commercial prospects than Apple's own, released pictures could (at whatever time they were released).
After reading the 10 Big Myths About Copyright Explained, it would seem (at first glance) that Appleinsider would fall protected under the Fair Use exemption. However, if Appleinsider knew the pictures were leaked (illegally), that protection flies out the window.
Although I don't like Apple, I think they should go after Appleinsider if there is a good case behind them (not just legal bullshit). We can't let copyright enforcement lax.
Perhaps it's different in the States than here in the frozen North.
The next time you find yourself grumbling about HTML that was written by designers, managers and secretaries who have declared themselves "programmers," remember the programmers on /. who think that they're lawyers...
Apple needs to hire the Security Firm of Fruity, Bo Bo Chop, and Willey from the Richard Townsend show.
Whenever a website does something Apple doesn't like, BAM! Fruity and Bo Bo Chop go down there to adjust some attitudes.
My question is what is the legal basis for Apple forcing these sites to remove the information? It seems to me that unless the Web sites had a non-disclosure agreement with Apple, they should be free to display whatever information they can gather. I understand Apple going after the supposed employee that leaked the info, that I can see, but not going after sites that are simply displaying this information. Personally I don't believe that this has done any harm to Apple,
The employee(s) leaking the information are guilty of espionage, for fame, bribes or misguided enthusiasm, the do hurt Apple. The sites which publish this information are parties to espionage, where ignorance is not a defence.
Apple may be hurt by people putting offer purchases, based upon rumors of a purported new machine which, for their purchasing criteria, is more suitable. Apple may have to delay the release or put off indefinitely and where does that leave their sales? It also is damaging to reputation when a prospective buyer tires of rumors and determines for themselves that Apple is unreliable and produces vapor.
Both the leaker and the publisher of such information need to take care that they can't be held liable for damages in such instances.
There's also something to be said for employee loyalty when someone jumps outside the huddle to scream to the audience and opposing team what a great new play they've got.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Apple has a case of Litigation Envy.
It sees Bill Gate$ throwing lawsuits around like whiskey bottles in the bleachers at Wrigley Field; thus making Apple feel somehow...flaccid.
DrQu+xum: Proof that the lameness filter doesn't work.
Actually, your wrong. All of the suits by Apple against Microsoft were dropped when MS invested 100 million dollars in Apple. All of the suits were going well for Apple and Apple would most likely would have gotten more money, but only after years of appeals and crap that Apple nor Microsoft wanted to go through.
Help me through college please!
Maybe if you had asked first they would have been happy to let you use it. But instead you decided to be irresponsible and just use it without their consent? What the FUCK do you expect?
"MaN I jUSt CopIEd ThE AoL LoGo WiTHoUt PerMisSIoN anD nOW TheY EmAIL mE SaYiNg I ShOuLd TakE it DOwN, whAt AsShOleZ!! ! !" Just be happy they didn't sue you and rape you of your savings.
Help me through college please!
I haven't been keeping track of the whole story, but it sounds similar to the Adobe Photoshop 6 leak. That didn't technically hurt anyone, but you know that Photoshop 5.0/5.5 sales would slump big time when word got out that 6 is just around the corner.
Hence, the joke.
Next time I'll try to be more obvious in my humor.
How about this:
The Justice Department brought a lawsuit against Apple Computer (AAPL) yesterday over their "There's always room for iMac!" campaign. The Gov't charged them with diluting the Jello trademark and confusing consumers. A class-action suit is pending as well, from angry iMac owners who, eager to try their fruit-flavored iMacs, chipped their teeth on the hard plastic casings. The only winners in this long, sad ride were the investors who thought they had bought into "some fruit company". Fortunately, we the American people are being protected by these fraudulent product promotions and deceptive advertising once again by our loving government.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
What law, and/or precedent are you basing your statements on?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Which means you'd have to prove you haven't had any kind of contact with any of Apple's proprietary information. You can't prove that.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The corps must have spent some big cash to get that kind of legislation passed. Why should anyone but the leakee be responsible for a corporation's inability to keep its secrets? Nobody else signed a contract with them. Nobody else should be bound by law to keep their secrets. The answer, as the quote above points out, is money. The last thing we need is more laws to constrain us so that corporations have an easier time making money. If a corporation doesn't want to make its secret public via a patent, copyright, etc, then it shouldn't receive government protection.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If a corporate employee violates his NDA and gives info to a friend, and I get it from his friend and post it on my website, am I liable? What if I give it to someone else, and they give it to someone else, etc, until someone finally publishes it? How far does the chain go?
I'm asking this because these laws basically seem to give a coporation carte blanche to prosecute anyone publishing any information that they don't want made public. They simply have to declare that it's a trade secret. All of their employees have likely signed contracts to the effect that they are not allowed to disclose any company information to anyone not directly employed by the company for any reason whatsoever. Therefore, obtaining information through any possible means could be traced directly to a security lapse by an employee of the company, and therefore would be covered under the trade secret law. That is why this will serve as a tool for corporate censorship of the press and of individuals. The movie "The Insider" is a good example of how the press can be censored by a corporation. Even though the information is extremely important for the public to know, and even though they have signed no contracts with the corporation, they can be coerced into silence with the threat of a bankrupting lawsuit.
Granted, the Mac pics weren't earthshakingly important to the public, but the same principle applies. We can't really judge what's important, or to whom, or why. There should be equal protection for all speech such as this.
Maybe someday we'll realize that you can't just slap a legal muzzle on people for revealing the truth, even though it's not to your benefit. Unfortunately, until something is done about laws like this, that's exactly what will happen.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
He didn't say that. He's saying that comparing physical property to "intellectual property" is like comparing apples and oranges. They aren't the same, even though big business is lobbying hard to get them treated the same (with pretty good success so far), so the CompUSA analogy is not valid.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
"Intellectual property" is not the same as physical property. Even though corporate interests are trying to get that changed, it's just a fiction created by them so that they can justify the censorship and absolute control of information that they are striving for.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Intellectual property is a fiction created by those who want you to believe the crap you just posted. It is not the same as physical property. Physical property laws don't, and shouldn't, apply. IP laws are used to create artificial scarcity to profit corporations that control most methods of distribution. Now that they've managed to corrupt the copyright and patent systems, they're starting to flex their new muscle.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You automatically own the copyright to works that you create. You don't have to explicitly state that they are copyrighted. Therefore the copyright on the Tommy/Pam tape was owned by them. That didn't make a difference. I'm not responsible for maintaining their privacy. Nor am I responsible for maintaining Apple's privacy. The government offers them ways of controlling their information, but they chose to take it upon themselves with this information. I don't think they should be allowed to use the law to bludgeon those who publish the information that they receive unless they have some sort of contract with Apple that says they will not. Why is it that corporations should have so much more privacy protection than actual citizens of this country? That's just twisted.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
As I understand it, a trade secret may remain "secret", as long as reasonable steps were taken to protect it (NDA's, marked documents, etc.). If it is leaked, a competing company can usually not legally use the information until they get the same information though an untainted source.
I'm not sure how the laws of trade secret apply in this case, where the publications are clearly not competing with Apple.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
That shows how much you know. Jobs has learned to work much better with his team and the synergy that exists between his creativity and the excellent engineers at Apple has resulted in the resurgence of a company that most left for all but dead three years ago.
The difference between this steve jobs and the old steve jobs is that he has learned how to manage a company. His ways may conflict with your 'any information I want is mine' mentality, but under his leadership Apple has revitalized itself and is _finally_ on track to ship a modern OS.
I don't like everything about Jobs, nor do I like everything about Apple. But unlike any other company I know, the people at Apple truly believe that they are driving the computer industry forward and that they can provide innovative tools for their core markets. They think they can change the world and they often do.
Do I sound like an Apple apologist? Answer me this.. what other computer company could have made fashion as much a part of the computer as its internals? Everyone who thinks that Apple is about making cute toy computers needs to think more critically - exploring the detail and attention that goes into their products reveals that Apple is creating an experience, like Disney or MGM might. Look at the way the power buttons on the monitor and cube pulse in sync! Look at the way the iBook's power light 'beats' slowly on and off while it sleeps.. Look at the integration of software and hardware that only they can do.
Sure, they've got lots of problems. I've read of iMacs catching fire. I'm sure other computers have done that, too. It only shows that Apple or its manufacturing plants aren't perfect. Neither is Jobs.
The point is, he may be a little too imperial and dictatorlike than you can stomach. However, he has passion in Apple's work; he wants to change the world, again and again, and he and his engineers and designers are as much artists as they are technical wizards.
Passion, more than anything else, drives invention. If that is Job's mistake; if that is what he hasn't figured out, then I don't agree with you.
So tell me, FreeUser, what exactly did they do that was wrong? Give me a list.
I'm beginning to wonder when/if Apple will see the errors of their ways and realize what they are doing to themselves.
Probably about the time they file for Chapter Eleven. Though with Steve Jobs' inability to ever recognize his prior mistakes, I wouldn't be surprised if, even then, they never figured out just what it was they did wrong.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
But the law doesn't talk about "intellectual PROPERTY", it talks about "patents", "copyrights", and "trademarks". The term "intellectual property" is a convenient (and misleading) shorthand to refer to that diverse collection of laws that grant certain people special rights for a limited amount of time.
Stereotypes don't exist in a vacuum. If Mac Freaks(tm) didn't buy the latest'n'greatest from Apple pretty much every time there was a new release, Apple would have been bankrupt years ago. Mac fans upgrade almost as instinctually as corporate IT departments upgrade their MS Office. After all, the new Apple slogan is "Think Different", not "Think Independently".
IANAL, so everyone off my case. =)
</disclaimer>
I'm not sure it's entirely true that anyone can be sued for any reason. It is at least expected that a plaintiff have a cause of action - that they have been wronged in some way, and that they attribute the wrong to the defendant. I can't sue someone for wearing an orange leisure suit, but I can sue someone for wearing an orange leisure suit if it made me violently ill.
Regrettably, I would be likely to lose this case.
If memory serves (I haven't read the cease and desist orders, or any subpoenae), Apple's cause of action is that the pictures of the Cube constitued a trade secret, and their publication caused harm to Apple as a company. This seems a little counter-intuitive (read: bullshit) considering that they published identical pictures the next day, but like I said before, IANAL.
You're allowed to use copyrighted pics if it's for the purpose of criticism, commentary, news reporting, etc. It's fair use.
All these mp3's on my harddrive suck.
(think about it)
_______
2B1ASK1
1. How can Apple sue sites that post info about rumored products?
Apple (just like you and me) can file a lawsuit against anybody, anytime, for any reason. "Suing" just means "filing a lawsuit." I can sue you because the color of your eyes causes me mental anguish. My suit will be thrown out in a heartbeat, but I can file the suit. There would be no benefit to my doing this, of course, but a major corporation, with lots of money and a legitimate-sounding complaint can make defendants spend a lot of money to get the suit thrown out. For many people, the cost of defense against what is essentially a frivolous suit is not worth it; they'll fold. (I know I would - I've got a family to feed, you know?)
2. Why would Apple sue these sites?
Hype, man, hype. Apple is saying "Our new computers are so INSANELY great, they're so TOP SECRET that we will sue people just for posting PICTURES of the CASES!" Hypothetical conversation, overheard on street - "Have you seen the new Mac?" "No! But I have heard that they are so cool! I want to see one!" "Not only do I wish to see one, I also wish to buy one!"
3. Could Apple win?
Not knowing ANY details about the cases, I don't know. But I would suggest that it is possible to trademark the way your product looks. If Apple trademarked their products' appearance, they would be expected to aggressively defend against unauthorized use of that trademark, or else face the loss of the trademark. Apple could certainly trademark the "secret" code names of their products (BHA, anyone?), and could then likewise defend against unauthorized usage. Rumor sites would then be reduced to "We heard about this cool new product Apple is making - we can't tell you what it's called, we can't show you what it looks like, and everyone at Apple is afraid of getting fired, so we can't tell you where we heard it from, but boy is it cool!" Don't know about you, but I consider unsubstantiated rumors to be pretty worthless (MS press releases, anyone?)
On the other hand, I took the pictures off of AppleInsider and posted them on my own site. Thereafter I was sent a notice of infringement letter by Apple.
So did I obtain the images through illegal means?
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
Basically trade secrecy laws can be enforced on the person who stole the secret, via espionage, violation of NDA, employee agreement, or whatever.
A trade secret is still a trade secret as long as it has not been 'widely disseminated' to the public. As long as it was just in the hands of a few rumors sites, it was not widely disseminated, but if it was on the sites and was read by a few thousand people, it starts crossing that line.
The most interesting bit to me is that every NDA I've ever read (except for ones written on napkins during business lunches) states that the relevant party only has to keep the information learned a secret until he or she hears the information from a third party to which he or she has not signed an NDA.
Basically this means that even if Joe Apple Contractor leaked the info to AppleInsider, Apple would have to prove that he didn't get it from another rumor board first.
As for the cease and desist letters sent out to everyone who posted the pictures (including me), that's simple strongarming. As long as Apple doesn't know for certain that the publisher doesn't have an NDA or other confidentiality agreement with Apple, Apple can tell them to take it down and threaten legal action. Anyone can threaten legal action against anyone else. whether they'd win is another matter entirely, but in many cases (including AppleInsider, MacInTouch, and MacOSRumors) the expense any legal action would entail, valid or not, represents a threat large enough to warrant taking down the info to appease Apple.
This, my friends, is the heart of F.U.D., and unless someone were to organize, fight, and win a class-action harassment suit against Apple, don't expect anything to change. More to the point, such a class-action suit probably wouldn't win, because while the Cube was still conceivably a trade secret, most courts would probably agree to Apple's rights to attempt to protect it in the manner they did.
Of course the punchline is that if they hadn't fought, or better yet, if they send out a barrage of badly photoshopped mock-ups of the Cube along with the real ones, nobody would have believed it anyhow.
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
In the Grand Old American Justice System, you don't really need a good legal reason to sue someone. You can sue for "alienation of affection" in this country, or "causing emotional distress." You can sue whoever you want for whatever you want. You may not win, but you can sue.
... in fact, they probably hope that they never make it to court. Lawyers count on the expenses being high enough that the other party will want to settle.
What's really going on, is Apple has a big bunch of lawyers on retainer, and are using them to bully smaller parties into doing things their way.
The small guys can't afford the legal battle, so they capitulate. Apple doesn't have to win the lawsuits
If the guys who published those pictures had a big cadre of lawyers (or really deep pockets), they would just thumb their noses back at Apple (and, maybe, countersue for restraint of trade or something).
The system sucks. (Even though, once in a while, one of those ridiculous things that people sue for is actually legitimate. Not in this case, as far as I can tell).
-
bukra fil mish mish
-
Monitor the Web, or Track your site!
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
Nope.
Selling the pictures, or the right to view the pictures would be.
There may or may not be fair-use protection for the users of the pictures, considering they wrote an article about the upcoming hardware.
They could have been completely safe if they'd hired an artist to draw the cubes, from the pictures, and simply displayed an artist's rendition. This completly gets around copyright issues (because it's not the same picture) and would let them display it.
The simple fact that there's an upcoming product could never be considered a trade secret, there's nothing there that a trade is based on. Trade secrets are things like the Coke-a-cola formula, how they get the caramel into the milk chocolate, etc.
That said, the legal climate these days allows suing with no rational basis and because even in malicious lawsuits, in civil court, the defendant has to pick up the tab which means that big companies always win.
IMHO There should be a HUGE punishment for malicious lawsuits, maybe 10% of a company's gross profits, or something. And yeah, that's designed to put the majority of offenders out of business after one or two obviously stupid lawsuits.
Sorry, but this is basically completely wrong.
The main difference under copyright law between non-commercial & commercial use is the penalty: non-commercial use only gets actual damages, commercial use gets puntative damages as well. The commercial or non-commercial nature of the use is considered in determining whether an infringement falls under fair-use, but it is only a factor, and non-commercial use quite often will still be illegal.
Another aspect is the context & substance of the violation: Reading a single sentence of a book will virtually always be considered fair use since I'm not really effecting the merchantability of the book (though your specific example of charging to hear the sentence concievably would result in violation).
On the other hand, if the website was directly profitting from those pictures (i.e. selling the pictures themselves) I think they could be in trouble (I don't think that happened though).
That has nothing to do with anything. The basic criterion for fair use of a portion of a copyrighted product is that the sample is sufficiently small that it doesn't serve as a replacement for the product it is taken from.
This would seem to suggest that these websites have no right to copy the entire picture. However, the pictures in question haven't been treated as products by Apple, but rather as speech. They use them to tell the world what their product looks like, not to sell for profit as a product on their own. That makes any sort of copyright protection practically impossible to enforce.
Copyright protection is based on commercial value. Basically, you can only sue someone for your losses. If you try to sue someone for distributing publicity shots that are publicly available from your website, you'll probably end up paying their legal costs for malicious litigation.
While, technically, any copyright violation like this is a tort, when no damage is done to the commercial value of the copyrighted work itself, successful litigation is impossible (this is part of why the GPL is legally questionable; since the copyright holder doesn't gain any unique profit to himself, it could be argued that no damage could be caused and thus no grounds for financial restitution could ever be found due to noncompliance with GPL terms, so anything under the GPL is effectively in the public domain).
So this could perhaps be called "back door" fair use: it is allowed because copyright was never designed to protect this kind of thing, so the mechanisms of enforcement don't work, not because specific exceptions for it were written into copyright law.
(IANAL)
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
Apple sues because that is part of its corporate culture. A lot of it has to do with Steve Jobs. The man is very intelligent and can be brilliant at times. But he also has the emotional development of a 2 year old. When I see things like this I think of the rondroids and their crusade against freedom of information. Actually the cases aren't that similar. Apple is pissed because someone stole the show from them. $cientology is pissed because people are making things known about them that are as damaging as they are true. Apple really shouldn't be suing anyone, except maybe the original source of the leak within their company. If they want to stop leaks like this from happening, they need to tighten up on their own security. The fact that a leak happened should tell them that something within their own organization needs to be corrected. Not that its time to wage war against some of the very companies that are helping keep them afloat. Do you suppose this is what they mean by Think Different? Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
No, it's not. The pics weren't publiclly released yet and, as such, cannot be used under fair use. It's literally the same thing as walking into GM's research facility, snapping a few pics, and publishing them.
As soon as Steve said, "And oh... one more thing" the pictures did become fair game under fair use,
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
>I think Apple is sueing for one perfect reason >(other than Steve Jobs having his show >stolen): They don't want rumors of new >products floating because they want to sell >out their old stuff from the shelves before hot >new things are announced. Not entirely true. If you buy from the Apple store up to two weeks prior of a new model release (or revision), they will upgrade your machine to the new model/revision if you send it in. My girlfriend's mom works at a print shop, and they just bought eight iMacs---of the previous release. Fortunately they bought direct from Apple and only week prior to the convention. They called Apple, sent them back, and Apple sent them new iMacs and ended up with eight faster/better/cheaper machines for the price of their original order. AND, if you can prove that your Photoshoping is based upon your own assumptions and suppositions, no, they can't sue you.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
Stolen material is not covered under fair use. Here & Here
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
Considering how many devices have jumped on the translucent blue bandwagon, it's understandable that Apple would like to have the money they spent on artistic design to be worth something. If they design a certain case, and it's leaked months before they want it to, and others start copying the design, then Apple has just lost the uniqueness in their design for that product much sooner.
This is not the kind of question that should be posed to Slashdot readers, of all people. You'll get armchair takes on this from people with no legal understanding whatsoever, and lots of "what should be" rather than "what is." Then each of these will degenerate into clueness discussion threads.
Those cars are usually fotographed on the open roads, so those pictures are what anyone could have seen. This also means that no NDA was signed at any time by the people taking the pics. In the apple case a worker breached an NDA (or at least that's what apple says, but that's not the point here), so an agreement was broken. It all comes down to whether there is an agreement/contract or something like that was broken.
At least, that's what I can come up with...
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
There is a phrase around Apple called "getting Steved". This happens when someone argues too forcefully with Jobs in a meeting, and crosses some imaginary line. That person is fired on the spot, a.k.a. "Steved". I think the same mentality is behind this legal action. Jobs may not be able to make non-employees lose their jobs for leaking the photos, but he'll make things as disagreeable as he can.
Walt
This is true -- but doesn't explain why it shouldn't be legal. It explains why Apple can be upset, and why they could internally discipline leakers, but not why the receivers of that information shouldn't be protected. For instance, official journalists would have protection from this sort of suit, so why shouldn't online reporters?
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
I am constantly amazed with the uninformed posts regarding intellectual property! In short: That's not how it works, bucko. In this case, they have no right to sue the people with the 'stolen' photos of the Cube, nor ask for them to be handed over, nor interfere with their publishing. They have a beef with the fellow that handed the pictures out, that's it.
.sig: Now legally binding!
Oooh, oooh!! He called us 'Mac freaks'!
Hey! Thin-skinned politically correct guy! Get over it. We're all freaks, of one flavour or another. Knowing you are is the first step to recovery.
.sig: Now legally binding!
Leaks can be damaging to any company. Leaked information about products which have not yet been released generates rumors and informs competitors.
Rumors usually work *against* a company in one of two ways: either they generate undue hype before a product's release, resulting in ludicrously high customer expectations when the product is finally released; or they generate undue criticism of a product before it is finally released. Either way, rumors can drastically damage a new product launch.
And in terms of the competition, letting a competitor know what you are up to is never a helpful policy.
- Keith
- "It's just a matter of opinion!" - PRIMUS
you must be a buddy of Jon Katz and believe that everyone that reads /. is a freak or a geek.
I'd like to think I'm a normal, average joe that likes to play with computers (but earns more than most white collar workers)
they are not trying to sue the companies hosting the sites. they are only trying to get information about the identities of the people posting the information because they believe that the people(s) posting this information are Apple employees that could be guilty of breaking the NDA's they signed.
As others have noted as well as multiple news outlets, many of apple's products are built on hype and secrecy, and that their stock price can be affected by this information being leaked before Apple officially leaks the info. Remember, Apple is one big orchestra and Jobs is the conductor. He doesn't like a tuba laying out a blast in the middle of a quiet spot in the music.
On the other hand, if the website was directly profitting from those pictures (i.e. selling the pictures themselves) I think they could be in trouble (I don't think that happened though).
I'm not an expert in trade secret law, but isn't the burden of keeping trade secrets secret on the company? I mean, once the info is leaked, it isn't a trade secret anymore. The only way they would have a case against the websites would be if the sites had received the information from Apple directly, and had signed an NDA.
I find this whole affair alarming in that it is further evidence for the continuing erosion of our rights, and increasing aggressiveness on the part of corporate America in trying to underine our rights and exercise total control over everything. If we are not careful, it won't be long until we live in a world were corporations monitor your life down to the most minute detail. You will be forced to live your life as they see fit, and the only information you will have is what they deem appropriate. If some of thses issues are not dealt with in the Supreme Court sometime soon, we are all in big trouble.
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
It's rapidly becoming a common way to find names of anonymous sources. File a "John Doe" lawsuit and then supoena the sites where the information was posted. Then drop the suit and engage in a round of firing people.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Too many people want the latest greatest whether or not it's better.
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Yes but apparently you didnt
I honestly don't see the big deal here, either, and I wonder why Apple would do such a thing which only, in the end, alienates their own customer base.
Intellectual PROPERTY, still Property
-- Note: These Comments are Generated by ME! Not You! ME!
So, in my example: the store CompUSA has no right to sue the charity to get the computer back? to ask them to get it back? or to ask them not to use it?
-- Note: These Comments are Generated by ME! Not You! ME!
PISSED at my previous one -->
I go out and get the Debian Source CD. I strip out every REFERENCE TO GPL in the Source CD as well as any mention of LINUX or DEBIAN. I give it to my FRIEND joe and tell him its NOT DEBIAN or LINUX or GPLed. He begins to sell it as Joeian and doesn't release stuff under GPL as it was required? Will GNU sue Joeian? Will Slashdot get MAD? Will LINUX nuts scream horrors at Joe? YES.
The guy in the APPLE case got the pictures of the CUBE and info under a NDA (all employees sign NDA, Jobs ain't that dumb) and gives it to web sites to release it. Mmmm, he signed a agreement and violated it. Mmmm, now should the web sites be gotten? YES, they should.
Otherwise, by your LOGIC we have a perfect way to beat the GPL. Remeber, the GPL is a contract. an NDA is a contract.
-- Note: These Comments are Generated by ME! Not You! ME!
A Slighly More APPROPIATE Anology
-- Note: These Comments are Generated by ME! Not You! ME!
Anology:
if I work at CompUSA (I do not, but example) and steal one of their Computers and donate it to charity. I tell the charity that it is my old machine and I don't use it. Then CompUSA tracks down the stolen computer and demands it back from the charity, should the charity give it back? YES, they SHOULD ITS called "POSSESSION of STOLEN PROPERTY"
and that applies to this case.
-- Note: These Comments are Generated by ME! Not You! ME!
This term seems to be under some discussion here, so I thought it apropo to find a legal definition of the term. This is a paper that I found discussing the definition of a trade secret, how a company demonstrates that something is such, a quick history of the law and a description of the elements that have to be included in a lawsuit alleging that a secret has been stolen. Very interesting, and it seems that, yes, just about any piece of information can be classified as a trade secret provided some relatively vague standards are met.
With this instance it caused no harm. If anything it definately helped them and built interest in the little cube. But from a corporate point of view supposed someone had leaked the info about the cube2(Too tired for a good name). Apple is planning on introducing this in 3 weeks at Macworld(or something). However 2 weeks before the show the info is leaked and is everywhere. Apple does not deny it people say they will release it blah blah blah. 1 week before the show the people at Apple realize a huge flaw that causes the cube2 to violently explode destroying everything in a room when you open IE on it.(Don't ask where that came from) Suddenly they have to yank the product, come up with a cover story for why they are not releasing the product(plus explain why there are several dead beta testers) and convince everyone they are not a vaporware company. Suddenly they look really bad. Whereas had nothing been said they would have merely looked average at the show. I am not advocating lawsuits but I can see where they are coming from.
I am 31337 or something.
Allowing clones and then killing them off, now alienating the people that provide them with a living. I'm beginning to wonder when/if Apple will see the errors of their ways and realize what they are doing to themselves.
Steve Jobs is a showman first, CEO second. Nothing makes him happier than suspense. Someone robbed his thunder, and as a result he went out for blood.
People copy images all the time in 'sneak peeks.' The whole thing reminded me of the fake 'code' names that movies sometimes give themselves while in production to protect themselves from leaks (for any fellow star wars geeks here, "Blue Harvest" was the codename for Return of the Jedi while it was being made), or car disguises when test vehicles are being driven. Its all about drama.
'Course, once Jobs went on the warpath, his lawyers could probably find something suable with everyone. Bah.
-s
http://students.washington.edu/steve0/
- - - - - - - -
Don't worry, being eaten by a crocodile is just like going to sleep in a giant blender.
Historically, trade secrets weren't property. Trade secret law derived from contract law, and only bound those who had agreed to keep the secret. Trade secrets were discouraged; patents and copyrights, with disclosure and limited life, were legally preferred. In recent years, this has changed a little; there's now some ability to enforce trade secret rights against third parties. Those rights are limited, though, and generally end with public disclosure of the former trade secret.
Anyway, here's the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Anybody else see a frivolous lawsuit as a method to generate publicity?
Grins --
--
.sig coming soon
On October 11, 1996, President Clinton signed "The Economic Espionage Act of 1996" into law. The theft of trade secrets is now a federal criminal offense.
This is a major development in the law of trade secrets in the United States and internationally. The Department of Justice now has sweeping authority to prosecute trade secret theft whether it is in the United States, via the Internet, or outside the United States.
Section 1832 of the Act makes it a federal criminal act for any person to convert a trade secret to his own benefit or the benefit of others intending or knowing that the offense will injure any owner of the trade secret. The conversion of a trade secret is defined broadly to cover every conceivable act of trade secret misappropriation including theft, appropriation without authorization, concealment, fraud artifice, deception, copying without authorization, duplication, sketches, drawings, photographs, downloads, uploads, alterations, destruction, photocopies, transmissions, deliveries, mail, communications, or other transfers or conveyances of such trade secrets without authorization.
The Act also makes it a federal criminal offense to receive, buy or possess the trade secret information of another person knowing the same to have been stolen, appropriated, obtained or converted without the trade secret owner's authorization.The definition of a "trade secret" in the Act generally tracks the definition of a trade secret in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act but expands the definition of a trade secret to include the new technological ways that trade secrets are created and stored. There's a ton of other useful information out there as well, including various state laws and supreme court decisions.
End of Quote
I had done research on trade secret law about five years ago, and even then there was a lot of case law supporting trade secret protection. Many states have laws that are applicable, in addition to the federal laws. To find other good sites, just search: I typed in "Trade Secret Law" in my browser, and its search returned dozens of good hits, including the above.
Law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained. -- Aaron Burr
Steve likes surprises and if you ruin his thunder you'll have to pay dearly.
Unless there are new laws I'm not aware of, as far as I understand it (and I have studied this recently), by definition, trade secrets are NOT protected by law.
This is wrong, at least as far as California is concenred. California (as have a large number of states, actually) has enacted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. See Civil Code section 3426 et seq. It provides a cause of action for misapproriation of trade secrets. In this case, there was presumably "misappropriation" because the rumor sites disclosed apple's trade secrets, which were obtained "from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief (apple) to maintain its secrecy." In other words, if you get trade secrets from someone who has violated an NDA to give you the information, your disclosure consitutes misappropriation.
I too have studied this issue recently, and in fact have litigated some trade secret cases. This isn't just a scare tactic (although that may be its primary purpose), as the law provides for monetary damages, and, in the right circumstances, exemplary (i.e., punitive) damages and attorneys' fees. Attorneys' fees would be a big hammer here, because apple's damages are probably pretty small (they introduced the cube a couple of weeks later, so what great loss did they suffer during that time?). But Apple could easily rack up $200,000 in attorneys' fees prosecuting one of these cases.
Maybe the shock here comes from a few too many geeks buying into Apple's marketing hype. Sure, Apple looks all warm & fuzzy next to Microsoft... but at the end of the day, they are a secretive, proprietary stronghold who WOULD act like Microsoft if they were in a position to do so.
Since Apple included a huge poster insert of the cube in the latest issue of Newsweek, everyone should by now realize that the 'cube' is an overpriced piece of junk with no expandable slots and is designed for Apple designer freaks who will buy anything, as long as it is packaged in a cute way. Only $1800 for the cube... $500 for the cheapest monitor... combined with Apple's lock-tight marketing campaign = new summer homes all around for Apple execs.
Apple & Microsoft can both go to hell.
bjord.org
news from the revolution
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Pretty much any country that wants to be a part of the WTO has to play by IP rules similar to those in the US. That means that any developing nation that wants loans or trade agreements from the big boys will get strong-armed into adopting "the party line" on intellectual property, drugs, taxes, etc.
Welcome to the modern networked world, everyone...where big business has just as much power as government in every country, and can intimidate, sue, and surveil you anywhere, anytime, for any reason.
Journalism.
Too bad for them, publishing "general information" is not what they did.
What constitutes a trade secret? (I really want to know)
Those who saw the Cube before its announcement signed a trade secret aggreement which forbid them from leaking the information. The publishers involved are believed to have known about this agreement when they distributed the leaked info and pictures. Like the previous poster pointed out, this is kind of like fencing stolen goods.
The bottom line here is that legally, Apple is probably right. They are being dicks, but as far as the law goes they are probably right.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
How nice it is to log onto Slashdot and be stereotyped and insulted for my choice of platform.
"Mac Freak" is equivalent to "Linux Zealot". People who buy stuff, or like it just because of the logo.
The door swings both ways on /, even if it is more one way than another. Go figure, a predominately Linux newsite would do that.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
Yes, it's the intellectual-property equivalent of buying stolen property. Even though you didn't steal it yourself, you're still not allowed to have it.
You're allowed to use copyrighted material in more situations than that, and that's important to know.
As far as I know, it is okay to publish copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder if it's not-for-profit. That is to say, I can say "In Section 4.3.1 we saw how functions can be passed as parameters." (Weiss, Efficient C Programming, 1995), even though I'm not Mark Allen Weiss, because people aren't paying me to hear that sentence. Of course, a news operation, critic, commentor, or otherwise may make a profit from his claims, but that's acceptable. You just can't say "Pay me $5 to hear me quote Mark Allen Weiss."
Profitable operations like that require agreement from the copyright holder. Furthermore, in an acceptable (but without permission) display of copyrighted material, it is necessary to give the copyright holder credit for the information on display.
As long as those pictures actually did belong to Apple (they weren't fakes), it was stated that they belonged to Apple, and the sites didn't charge for them (I saw the pictures, and I didn't pay anything), I don't believe there is any legal basis for a law suit.
I don't believe.
Personally I don't believe that this has done any harm to Apple, the Mac freaks are going to buy the stuff no matter what Apple does, and no one else gives a damn anyway. So I don't see any 'material harm' being done either way.
The material harm in leaking the info prior to the big release is a marketing/branding issue. First impressions last a long time, so when a company releases a new product, they try to control the first impression as much as possible. This is doubly important when you're releasing something, like the cube, that's very different.
Basically, if pictures of the cube were widely available for too long, people would form their own impressions of it BEFORE Apple could explain the purpose of the cube. Worse, competitors could find ways to dismiss the product before its release. (e.g., You're not Borg. Why would you want a cube?)
Take the Linux Watch for example. Many of us probably looked at the picture before reading the IBM release. And a lot of us thought "That's cute, but why would I want a watch that can run a webserver but can't tell the time?" So we formed our own impression and dismissed IBM as idiotic. But IBM's purpose was to prove that Linux could be scaled down to a wristwatch. Had this been an actual product, IBM would have lost potential business from the people who dismissed the watch without reading the purpose. A controlled launch helps to alliviate some of these problems.
Was Apple being a tad hyper? Probably. But they're taking a risk in releasing such a different product, and it's understandable that they want to manage the release as much as they can.
I can spell. I just can't type.
This begs the question, where did AppleInsider get the pics? Was it from an Apple employee? Someone else with access to Apple? Is it illegal to publish rumors if they are in the form of a graphic?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
First, there's an interesting article in today's TidBits about this issue. Among other things, it points out that there's a plausible case that rumors sites have a negative impact on Apple.
Second, the current focus of Apple's lawyers is on the individual(s) who did violate NDAs, not on sites who use that information.
Third, regarding Cliff's comment -- remember that Apple is a real company that needs to make a profit, and does so by selling distinctive hardware and software. It's unfair to expect it to be as cuddly as a Linux start-up that sells a product someone else makes, doesn't and never will turn a profit and whose primary business activity is keeping its stock price inflated by "demonstrating that it gets the community."
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
There are a very large number of reasons why this is legal, and actually not that "big bad evil company." Some of these have been posted to previous articles, but I will attempt to encapsulate the biggies.
*the photos were most likely copywrighted
*Apple asked the sites to remove and they refused. This is not a case of the person not knowing what they were doing was wrong
*info leaking too early could hurt competition
*info leaking too early could damage chances at getting a patent on the item - once an idea is in the public domain, it is no longer patentable, even if only your design is in the public domain.
*Rumors sites are fun for the fanatics, who have already decided whether or not to buy apple, but they don't actually generate new sales of products, so they aren't losing any business by shutting them down
I haven't seen Apple's analysis, but it is entirely possible that they will lose money out of info being released early, and if they aren't vigilant in stopping this early release of propreitary info, they are setting a bad precedent for future secrets leaking.
This is Apple's business decision and perfectly legal. It is not free speech if you are posting someone else's property.
-nosilA
As best I can tell, what Apple really wants to do is issue a subpoena to the websites to find out what Apple employee leaked information. There's little or nothing to be gained from actually suing the sites for monetary damages.
:)
Hey, where's Jim Tyre when you need him?
-Waldo
-------------------
It is a little known fact that anyone can be sued for any reason.
To bring a lawsuit requires no legal basis whatsoever, though winning one usually (not always!) does and, in some states, even persuing one beyond the initial hearing phase generally does.
Despite anti-SLAPP efforts and legislation there are many, many frivolous lawsuits which clog the system, wreck lives, and poison the social fabric.
It would not suprise me if Apple were engaged in such a suit, using the power of the legal system as a proxy for thugs in persuing a policy of intimidation and fear, in order to maintain iron-fisted control of their products' announcements, releases, and, yes, even rumors.
Misguided? Yes. Unenlightened? Obviously. Wrong? Most certainly. Legal? Quite probably.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The reasoning is that the web sites were distributing material that could only have been obtained through illegal disclosure of trade secret information.
This is the same reasoning the MPAA is using to block the distribution of deCSS code.
My understanding is that if you have a trade secret that was obtained improperly, and you know it, you are not legally free to pass the trade secret on to other people.
Of course, you can sue anyone for anything, and of course, you can be punished for suing someone for something utterly baseless. The number of lawyers who get disbarred is just more evidence of how you don't need any justification to initiate a lawsuit.
Those of us who have been plaintiffs know that it's already hard enough to win a judgement when you are totally in the right.
If you look a bit harder, you realize the reason for that is that being totally in the right is often only one relatively minor playing piece. It's usually enough to tip the balance when both sides can hire nearly equally good lawyers and have equally suitable clients (a client who is a talented deceiver is worth a whole team of $1000/hour lawyers), and occasionally there's enough evidence that only an incompetent lawyer could lose. However, the law is so absurdly complicated and poorly worded that often a good lawyer can bring up any number of technicalities and inexplicable precedents which only an equally good lawyer can counter. If you throw a jury into the mix (an average group of people with typically weak logic and ignorance of the law, who are then told to put aside their common sense and decide purely on legal issues), there's no telling what will happen; they aren't even held accountable for their decision.
It seems to me that it is quite common for both corporations and individuals to threaten lawsuits that have no real legal basis, and not unheard-of for them to win despite this. The cure is not to make it harder and more dangerous to sue (as you seem to be protesting the suggestion of such), but to simplify and clarify the whole body of law and let lawyers argue the uncertainty of the facts rather than the uncertainty of the laws. Of course, this isn't going to happen any time soon.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
- The element of secrecy and suprise is a very important aspect of staying competitive. Every month, every week, every hour makes a difference as far as competitors working to duplicate or one-up a new product.
- The element of setting expectations: if the rumors are wrong, reasonable and exciting, then they set expectations that may be hard to live up to.
- If the rumors are currently correct, that doesn't mean that last minute announcement changes won't be made, thus disappointing people or revealing problems to competitors. True rumors make it more difficult for a company to "turn on a dime" and avoid customer/competitor/supplier problems.
Having said all that, I like reading speculative info about new cool stuff...Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
Another question: What if I make up really good fake pictures in Photoshop and send them to some Mac Fanatics web site. And suddenly it turns out that Apple is going to bring out a product which look almost like my fakes? Will I or the Mac web site be sued?
The American legal system is very strange.
Actually, in this case it's more like reality is very strange. The American legal system is supposed to encompass all of this strangeness.
It's quite a task, especially when technology goes screaming by us so very quickly these days.
How nice it is to log onto Slashdot and be stereotyped and insulted for my choice of platform. If anyone ever wonders why many Mac owners have a negative attitude towards x86 users, look no further than ignorant comments such as this.
I wonder what the response would be if I stuck a completely unnecessary and untrue line about all Linux or Windows users being 400 pound acne faced, Star Trek uniform wearing and utterly clueless Linus/Gates worshipers onto the end of a story?
I would probably have an army of rabid Penguins released into my house in the dead of night!
The point is, be more respectful.
You should tell 'em what SLAPP is since they probably don't know: a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Usually designed to hold the public off of a boycotting/voting sort of situation until after the problem can be resolved, or hidden (in environmental terms, "greenwashed"). For example recently a collection of Minnesota timber workers sued environmental lobbying groups that had successfully finagled some legislation, claiming that the groups' environmental philosophy was religious and therefore their legislation violated the separation of Church and State. Now, obviously they weren't going to get away with this ridiculous claim, and in addition, they were sueing the wrong parties. However, "winning" isn't the goal of a SLAPP. The environmental groups (which were small and local) were sufficiently tied down by the legal dilemma that they were momentarily diverted from their anti-logging mission. Ultimately they were defended pro bono, and the press on behalf of the environmentalists made the loggers look so stupid that all the loggers' clout was pretty much ruined. The SLAPP had completely backfired.
I think most SLAPP's backfire, in the end; market forces may preempt the need for anti-SLAPP legislation. I eagerly await Apple's SLAPP in the face by the public.
Hope that helps.
As for why Apple is fed up with this type of behavior, it's because they are afraid of losing market share. Much of Apple's current business plan seems to be creating new things that aren't that hard to reproduce (clear optical mouse, cube-shaped computer, easy-to-use movie software). Much of Apple's sucess rides on being the only ones offering such products. If a competitor had knowledge of Apple's plans six months before Apple released products, they could possible bring a competitive product to market, perhaps before Apple. This would effectively negate Apple's edge.
Also if Apple's customers know that a new product line is coming out, they might not buy into the current line. Can't happen, you say? Look at Kaypro. They announced the new version of their computer a year before it shipped. People got excited about the new version and stopped buying the old version. With no money coming in, Kaypro was barely able to finish the machine and wandered into backruptcy soon after.
Apple isn't the only one doing this. Adobe is suing Apple Insider over their previews of Photoshop 6 and ImageReady 3. I suspect that as the Internet continues to facilitate the rapid spread of information we will see more and more of this type of thing.
An MWJ editor wrote a very good analysis of this subject. Check it out for more details.
So what? You're allowed to use copyrighted pics if it's for the purpose of criticism, commentary, news reporting, etc. It's fair use.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
So trade secrets that are leaked illegally can not be published in the US. How many countries have this level of protection for trade secrets?
If a trade secret is disclosed, it's no longer a trade secret. However, if a trade secret is disclosed illegally, even if everyone on Earth knows it, it is still protected information in the US, it seems.
Did you notice the similarity between the pics displayed on Apple's website and the pics on the sites being sued? They were the same photos, photos which I imagine Apple holds the copyright for. THAT'S the legal basis.