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.
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.
> 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.
1) The NY Times probably isn't going to knowingly violate fair use as defined under the Berne Convention.
2) It doesn't matter if its the NY Times, MacOS Rumors, or Slashdot. The legal grounds are the same regardless of the company.
Regarding the car thing: This is a different situation. The pictures are snapped in public during the road testing of new vehicles and are not product glamor shots comissioned by the company itself. If Apple's engineers decided to take, say, a pre-release iBook to the park someday, and I happened to take a picture of them using it in public, Apple could do very little legally except beg me to not publicize the photo. (Or just give me an iBook to shut me up!)
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
- 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.