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.

Comments

More Info...

[aberkvam]

In the first place, the actual lawsuit is against the people that actually broke the NDAs. Apple is not suing the people that posted it on their web site. They did demand that some web sites remove the images but nothing ever came of those threats.

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.

And?

[Danse]

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.

Re:And?

[HerrNewton]

Here's the pertinent portion of the Berne Convention which the U.S. Senate ratified shortly after its inception in 1967. Note that in order for a work to be usable under fair use, it has to be discovered in a legal manner which usually means that the publisher can be reasonably certain that it was obtained through legal means. In this case, it's fairly doubtful that the original publisher wasn't aware that they were publishing materials leaked in violation of an NDA.

----

Which countries allow this?

[crow]

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.

Pics and copyrights...

[kannen]

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.

Re:Trade Secret Law

[richardbowers]

Um...no. Try searching on "Trade Secret Law" :)
Here's what I found (at http://execpc.com/~mhallign/crime.html): 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.