Slashdot Mirror
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."
Props on the 'Sneakers' reference. What a great movie. I'm pretty sure I've got it in my DVD library - I'll have to dig it up and watch it tonight.
Unless, of course, scissors can't cut rock...
I mean, the guy posted schematics, for god's sake. Did he honestly think they wouldn't figure out where those came from?
When the pics were posted, most people said "No way!" and came up with a bunch of reasons for the pics to be fake... then it turned out they were real. I doubt there were any lost sales from the knowledge, as everyone was expecting PowerMac updates of some type anyway.
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
Apple really tries to control any media exposure to its products with an iron fist.. I'm still kinda wondering if Time Canada (I think that's who leaked the new iMac) every felt Steve's wrath.
It's pretty simple. He screwed up. (And he got caught)
He shouldn't have done it. There's no defense for it. Apple might be going at it heavy-handed, but only a fool would have tried this knowing that Apple (Jobs) will hurt -vendors- over leaks. He bitch-slapped ATI over leaking, so he's going to -hurt- some guy that leaks a photo or sketch of a new machine design.
Yes, it's heavy-handed. Yes, it made me wince. But all in all, the guy did fuck up.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
Apple has a history of protecting its goods and creativity and for that reason, I somehow doubt if it mattered whether or not the person leaking the trade secret in this case was a contractor.
My understanding is that if Apple does not actively protect and police its trade secrets, then its innovative goods and ideas no longer receive protection as trade secrets. No evidence is required to show that Apple is an innovative company --- if it did not receive protection for its innovation, then it may have little reason to create future innovative products.
Considering the pervasiveness of companies to recruit employees from other companies by using 'moles,' and Microsoft's history of heavy-handed tactics, perhaps Apple has another reason to protection its innovation: Microsoft.
Do you truly believe Microsoft has never placed a 'mole' or has an Apple employee it relies on for information? For also this reason, Apple has no choice but to pursue trade secrets claims in court against everyone it can, or it will entirely lose protection.
Pretty much, Apple is all about innovation and cutting-edge products. Take that away, and all I see is a company making an OS, keyboards, and mice.
they do this because if they do not aggressively pursue enforcement of certain Intellectual Property (IP) laws, a court may find one day that their brand has been allowed to erode. In other words, their TM will become watered down from a legal standpoint, so its stronger for them to sue everyone they can, than to let most of it slide and then lose when it counts.
this is what happens to a company after they sue m$ and win the battle, while losing the war.
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
In the case of Apple Computer, yes, it is news. Remember that Wozniak was one of the founders, and he is a famous phone phreak, a blue box-er like Captain Crunch. He was hacking Ma Bell and hiding from the Feds back in the day.
Every corporation has a corporate culture. When was the last time you saw Microsoft publicly attacking it's one of its developers for 'leaking secrets'? It happens, but Apple has a disturbing history of jealously pursuing it's employees. The corporate culture of Apple has transitioned from the hackers' culture of Woz to a Culture of Fear. If you are a developer at Apple, high profile anti-employee actions like this send a message: secrecy first, collaboration second.
It's a very interesting transition. I'm not making a value judgement about, other than to say yes, it is News for Nerds.
Kill Trolls Dead. Here's
out of the guy is what it sounds like according to the article
:)
"This suit against Lopez helps show the company vigorously tries to protect its secrets, Mireles said. In addition, such suits could serve to deter other potential leakers, he said"
Apple has taken legal action against coworkers that leaked info in the past (also mentioned in the article) but I think the real reason why they got upset is
"Steve uses Macworld and other appearances more effectively than any other (technology) leader," Bajarin said. "In that context they want to have that surprise element," because posting those secrets early dilutes the impact, Bajarin said."
of course the lawyers will argue:
"Innovation is in Apple's DNA, so the protection of trade secrets is crucial to our success. Our policy is to take legal actions where necessary to preserve the confidentiality of our intellectual property," Apple said in a prepared statement.
Just because Apple made a great new OS - doesn't mean they're avid sourceforge users
Ave Molech Setting
I think the real message here is "don't trust contractors." Or maybe "rumor sites are evil." Or maybe "Setec Astronomy."
How about "don't use contractors" or "have the wherewithall to actually hire people".
It looks like Apple was trying to score some cheap labor but didn't want to get their hands dirty. So they contracted with Volt to get some sweatshop laborers. (Laguna is basically where they build Macs - well there and Mexicali).
Well whaddya know, looks like they got what they paid for.
There's a difference between telling a friend over a beer that the new Mac will use the Blort chip, and publishing schematics. One is just being loose-lipped, and other is deliberate (and really stupid).
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
It sounds like they are much more worried about stealing Jobs' thunder at MacWorld and bruising his ego than loss of IP.
That's why most large companies have, as part of their security policy, a documentation labeling policy. It is up to the document originator to properly lable such documents (such as, general use, internal use, confidential, trade secret, etc.). Then there is a correlating policy on how such documents are to be handled.
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".
There are times when an employee ought to be able to break a NDA with impunity. When a company is behaving in a manner that is illegal or unethical a whistle-blower should have the protection of the law. Further when a company behaves in a manner that is illegal it could be argued that the employee has a legal duty to break any NDA that would involve them in a conspiracy "to pervert the course of justice," (at least that's the legal term that would be used in the UK).
Take an extreme and fictitous example, a food company uses a secret ingredient and has all its employees sign a NDA to preserve the secrecy of that ingredient. An employee discovers that the secret ingredient is rat poison, what should they do? I would say the should report it to the authorities and the press, and the company should not have recourse to law through the NDA.
The point I am trying to make here is that NDA's should be valid when they are used to protect trade secrets, and that the term trade secret should be strictly defined such that it covers knowledge that gives a company a competitive advantage over rival companies but not knowledge that a customer needs to make an informed choice about the value of that companies product.
One problem with the NDA's that employees are asked to sign is that they are over broad and it is the company that gets to define which pieces of information are secret. NDA's are open ended and one sided contracts.
Consider an old practice of IBM. They used to sell printers with a switch that changed the speed of the printer hidden inside the printer. They sold upgrades to these printers that involved an engineer visiting the customer's premises snd flicking the switch when the customer wasn't looking. Pure and simple IBM used secrecy to rip off customers. Trade secret or sharp practice?
Now consider the case in question? The information apple wanted to cover up was the fact that now wasn't the time to buy one of their machines. They didn't want their customers to be able to make an informed choice about when to buy. The information wasn't of a nature that would allow a rival to improve their product or make their product more efficiently. I don't see this as a legitimate area for NDA's to cover.
Well so any information that is not publicly known in a corporation is a trade secret? Using that mentality Apple can sue if an employee discloses whether or not Steve Jobs wears boxers or briefs.
The point was that there's actually a legal definition for a "trade secret". There is no copyright involved in this.
First off, if the contractor did leak the information then he was clearly in the wrong.
Second, Apple's attempts at "copyrighting" industrial design have always been a bit odious. I mean look at all the iMac-alike lawsuits they fired off. Don't you think some of the old terminals had already covered the ground of "screen w/ integrated electronics and keyboard on cord" form factor? Apple made it a little cooler with the translucent plastics, but it wasn't exactly ground breaking. Now, I can see a case for their newer iMac with the lamp arm (I still can't figure out if they're cool-looking or not).
So, the contractor violated an NDA. That's all well and good. But, did he really leak "trade secrets"?
BTW - the formula for coke is a trade secret. This means that no one really knows what's in there and Coca-Cola has to work hard to protect that information. This information was merely secret for the time being and was going to be fully revealed to the public just at a time of the company's choosing.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Getting busted for treason could be far worse - even if the charges end up being untrue - like that one nuclear chinese dude - him, his family, his private life all got dragged through the mud. Ultimately for nothing.
Bottom line - he signed a NDA and then violated it.
He deserves whatever he gets. "Information wants to be free" is crap - there is such a thing as personal responsibility.
If this guy was RMS's soul brother, and truly believed that "Information wants to be free" crap then he shouldn't have signed the contract in the first place.
Principles are only valid if you stick by them all the time, not just when they are convenient.
I bet it was written by a lawyer.
Since signing the NDA wasn't a condition of employment at the time that it was signed, the NDA cannot be enforcable against the employee unless it is supported by consideration (ie, they must PAY you something for signing the NDA). Without consideration (a legal term), there is no contract.
The paranoid lawyer within me says that the they gave you an NDA without a date to muddy the waters and try to cover up the fact that it was signed after you were given employment, and was not in fact a condition of employment. The lawyers knew there was a potential problem and tried to bury it.
However, keep in mind that the lack of an NDA does not fully excuse an employee for liability for leaking trade secrets.
IAAL, but IANAELA (I am not an Employment Law Attorney).
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!