Apple Accuses Worker of Leaks

booboothefoo writes "A former Apple Computer contract worker in Sacramento has been slapped with both civil and criminal charges for allegedly leaking Apple's trade secrets on the Internet." I think the real message here is "don't trust contractors." Or maybe "rumor sites are evil." Or maybe "Setec Astronomy."

Comments

Not quite

[bconway]

I think the real message here is "don't trust contractors." Or maybe "rumor sites are evil." Or maybe "Setec Astronomy."

That's funny, the message I took away from it was that if you violate a contract, the company has the right to, and often will, sue you.

Re:Not quite

[GeckoFood]

Exactly! From the article, here is a statement to further your point along:

Apple says an employment agreement that Lopez signed with Volt's Sacramento office prohibited him from divulging confidential information.

This is eactly what these agreements are for -- when you have some dumbass who decides to go against a contractual agreement, the nondisclosure is the company's legal route of recourse.

No tears shed for this guy. I hope they take him to the cleaners.

Re:or maybe the moral is that Apple isn't Willy Wo

[sweetooth]

Obvious troll, but I'll bite I guess.

When you sign a non disclosure agreement and then disclose information covered by the agreement you have violeted a contract. At that point any company will follow through with legal action against you. Not just Apple or Microsoft. Any company that has trade secrets is going to do what they can to protect them. This isn't apple holding on to brainspace. This is about someone violating the terms of a contract and Apple following through on enforcing it.

The Message I'm getting

[Alexander]

Or maybe the real message is, on a slow news day we have nothing better to post.

Really, in Lorne Greene/Marc Anderssen Internet years/time, how old is this news?

How controversial is it? If it weren't Apple but somebody as supremely unsexy like say, Unisys, would it even be news?

This is neither news - it's past it's prime, nor is it something "that matters".

Don't Trust Contractors

[Aggrazel]

You may as well say, don't trust ANYONE.

The only real difference between a contractor and an employee is how you get your paycheck. To say that someone is going to be more honest just because they are an actual employee is assinine.

I'm a contractor and I take my job very seriously, there is no way in hell I would ever betray the confidence of any of my employers. Not just because it would tarnish my reputation with future employers but also because I am that kind of person.

The company I am contracted to right now is very contractor friendly, I've seen some that are not. But the whole attitude that contractors are somehow less deserving of trust than regular employees really irritates me.

Now this guy clearly broke his contract. But it would not have made a difference if he were a regular employee or a contractor, the responsibility for trust is in the individual, not in how his contract of employment is written. I'm sure regular employees at Apple have the same moral obligations to keep a lid on trade secrets. /rant off

Re:Don't Trust Contractors

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Smart contractors develop relationships with their clients in order to cultivate repeat business. When an employee bails out for another job, they rarely think about returning to the original employer - often they even harbor feelings of great mistrust, feeling that they were treated unfairly which is what motivated them to look for a new job in the first place. Because of these common situations it often makes more sense to trust the contractors than it does to trust the employees.

Re:or maybe the message is have some ethics?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

it's called being paid fairly

The wonderful thing about the word "fair" is that the opposing parties on any issue will have radically different ideas of what it means.

It is also the word that the parent of a six-year-old hates most. If I had a nickel for every time I've cringed at, "But it's not fair!" I wouldn't have to work for a living.

In other words, my friend, quit your whining.

why cant companies do something simple like NOT STEAL FROM THEIR EMPLOYEES?

If Slashdot ever posts an article about an employer stealing from an employee, you can post this comment again. For now, though, I think we should all just stick to the subject at hand. Okay? Thanks.

Re:Not that it hurt anything

[ipjohnson]

He broke an NDA point blank, it doesn't matter if it hurt sales or not.

I have no simpathy for him he signed it, he knew what he was donig when he broke it. Why do you feel it makes a difference if sales where hurt?

Re:So?

[sweetooth]

This has nothing to do with collaboration or corporate culture, nor should it scare any of Apples employees. If you go to work for any company and you then turn around and violate your contract you shouldn't be surprised in the least when they come after you with thier lawyers. If this was a developer talking about the latest technologies on a public mailing list there is a decent chance Apple wouldn't need to puruse it as such. In this case you have someone providing information that should not have been discussed outside of Apples doors before Apple gave the go ahead.

IMO, if this was Apple going after an employee going after some developer for discussing information in a forum publicly without attempting to hide his identity, and not giving away "trade secrets", then it would be news. This is a corporation following up on the terms of a contract, nothing more.

Re:Apple... you disgust me.

[JordoCrouse]

I for one find this extremely disgusting. I understand that businesses need to protect their trade secrets, but I think this crosses the line.

Lemme see. The guy signed an agreement, took the confidental information, and purposely violated the agreement and posted the information on the internet. Oh, yeah, there was a line crossed, but news flash - it wasn't Apple.

If I had a company, and one of my employees breaks any NDA agreements like that, I'm gonna fire him first and turn him over the authorities second.

I don't care what sort of Stallmanistic view of society you have, you cannot possibly believe that somebody should be allowed to sign an agreement, and then break it because they feel that "information should be free".

When you sign your name to an agreement - thats it. You can't just go back later and say "oh, I was kidding". I hope when they throw the book at this guy, it hits him square in the forehead.

Re:So?

[margaret]

If you are a developer at Apple, high profile anti-employee actions like this send a message: secrecy first, collaboration second.

This has nothing to do with collaboration. The guy was leaking info to a rumors site about an upcoming product. He wasn't seeking input from the community about how to make it better. It probably just made him feel cool.

Re:or maybe the message is have some ethics?

[Mahrin Skel]

The message is that if you don't show any loyalty to your employees (if, for example, you employ them "at whim" through a temp agency, without benefits or job security) you shouldn't expect them to show any loyalty in return.

Way back once upon a time, I worked a fab line as a "contractor", it royally sucked. "Night and fog" atmosphere, people you work with would just stop showing up, and getting curious about why was a good way to follow them out the door.

--Dave

additional damages...

[SethJohnson]

The followup damages are this:

If consumers know that a new computer is about to be released with compelling features, it will be harder for retailers to sell the current inventory at the current retail price. Usually, in advance of a product introduction, Apple will curtail availability of products to retailers if the products are to be replaced. This helps prevent them from getting loaded down with the last model when the new model is released.

Blowing the secrecy of a new product release corrupts this process because consumers can make a tangible comparison of what waiting X days will get them vs. the mystery of knowing that a potentially-cool new product might be available soon. Retailers are then less-able to move the product that's currently on the shelves and they have to offer discounts on the leftover stock after the new product is out.