Apple Sues Employee Over Cube Leaks

Carnage4Life writes:"Apple has found out the employee who leaked pictures of the PowerMac G4 Cube. So Apple has modified its original lawsuit against "unknown individual" for leaking trade secrets and changed the name to that of the employee in court filings. So as not to embarass any employees with the same name Apple has not revealed the employee's name as at now."

Comments

More leaked apple stuff...

[grahamsz]

I can now exclusively disclose some exciting features about apples forthcoming laptop:

It will not be beige in colour
It will be smaller than a convential desktop
It will have a colour screen
It will run off exclusively designed lightweight batteries, and an optional powersupply
It will not come with Windows preinstalled
The device will have a non-typical texture
It will be easy to use
It will quite possibly be shiny
It will quite possibly have rubbery bits

sue me :)

The Name of the Employee revealed at MacSlash

[MacSlash]

Check out the MacSlash story today for the full report, including the name of the Apple employee, Juan Gutierrez. Our sources are trying to determine whether Gutierrez still works for Apple and what his position in the company was. Stop by and post your comments.

--

Consideration...

[KFury]

They don't want to embarass any employees with the same name, so they're not releasing it? Fat lot of good that does John Doe! His name has been dragged through the mud enough already! He's been sued several thousand times, got amnesia more times than he cna remember, but nobody ever keeps John's name out of the press to protect his feelings!

Kevin Fox

god

[happystink]

i love this, even though the article plainly states that CNET are the ones not publishing the employee's name, the slashdot wrapup doesn't say that and everyone jumps on Apple.

Read the article before trying to get your posts in guys, it won't slow you down too much on your quest to be the first one to bash whatever corporation is involved no matter what the story is.

sig:

I know the mystery employee.

[KFury]

He's my cube-mate, John Jacob Jingle-Heimer Schmitt. I tell ya, whenever he goes out there's confusion and shouting...

Kevin Fox

Re:Gee

[0xdeadbeef]

It is simply spin control, because the person's name is....

STEVE JOBS!

Apple Is In The Right

[tealover]

The employee violated a NDA. The employee was a sneaky bastard while violating the NDA. He did it under an assumed username and made posts to several forums. The employee obviously knew that what he was doing was in violation of the NDA.

I suspect this employee has learned a valuable lesson.

Hmmm...

[BJH]

For all of you who are siding with the employee concerned - don't bother. If you're ever called upon to sign an NDA, you can make that decision for yourself, just as he did. He decided to sign it; he decided to breach it. His fault.

What we should really be concerned about is the willingness of Yahoo to roll over for a corporation. If you went to them and said, "I want to know all the info you have on this person", they'd tell you to buzz off. Why is a corporation treated differently? In fact, this isn't even a criminal case; it's a civil suit, so it's not obstruction of justice to not release the necessary info.

Well,

[SvnLyrBrto]

>What we should really be concerned about is the
>willingness of Yahoo to roll over for a
>corporation. If you went to them and said, "I
>want to know all the info you have on this
>person", they'd tell you to buzz off. Why is a
>corporation treated differently?

It's simple really. Steve Jobs didn't just call up Jerry Yang and say "Hey, could you tell us who this guy is?"

Apple filed suit against "John Doe" first, and was therfore able to issue a subpeona to Yahoo for the info in question. Yahoo's privacy policy has an exception in it saying that they WILL turn over your information if required, by law, to do so. Well guess what... discovery procedings before a civil trial give the plaintiff the right to subpoena pretty much anything they feel related to the case. And a subpoena, issued in California, IS legally binding against Yahoo... were they to refuse, I don't think any PERSON would go to jail for contempt, but the company would be facing some hefty fines.

It's not a matter of one corperation kissing another's ass... it's a matter of complying with the law. If YOU *DID* file a lawsuit against a Yahoo user, YOU would ALSO have the right to subpoena yahoo's records on that person.

This was actually covered on /. a couple months back. Someone was sabotaging his emploiyer's stock price by posting inside info on Yahoo message boards, the company sued, and subpoenaed Yahoo to get the guy's real name. The guy then sued Yahoo FOR COMPLYING WITH THE COURT ORDER and turning over his info... stupid really. The ACLU got involved, and it turned into a bib mess, I don't know how it eventually turned out, but the story is in the /. archives.

Here's a clue to the Yahoo bashers:

Corperations are *NOT* your friend. They may supply a service you like at a good price, and the staff may be friendly. But the corperation is *NOT* your friend. They will NOT fight YOUR legal battle FOR you!!! (unless you pay them a lot of money to do so, and that's only if we're talking about a law firm)

john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!

Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if