Slashdot Mirror
Apple Subpoenas, Sues Over Leaks
CNET reports that Apple has been granted the right to subpoena O'Grady's PowerPage, AppleInsider, and Think Secret over leaks of information concerning an unreleased product code named "Asteroid" and "Q97," which has been described as a FireWire audio interface for use with GarageBand. The subpoenas are related to a lawsuit against an unnamed individual who leaked the information.
"Your first time being root is much the same as loosing your virginity only with less humilation."
Not if you manage to combine the right balance of arrogance and incompetence it's not.
this is getting old and so are you
blog
The main reason they are trying to stop these leaks is so that further leaks do not occur. I wouldn't be surprised if some of Apples competitors (say, app creators for MS Windows machines) troll the rumors sites to try and find out what Apple is up to. By creating a product, even if it is inferior, to one Apple is making and getting it out the door before Apple anounces their product or has it ready can cost Apple money. Mainly cause people will buy the first thing that comes along that does what they need if they don't know of any other product coming out anytime soon.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
I'd guess it means that people are violating their NDAs. There is nothing rotten with a company protecting thier confifendtail information.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
I love you people and your little conspiracy theories. It's cute. There's already a few others in this thread saying they're trying to divert attention, spin this, hype that. Ha.
It's quite simple, actually. Some guy posted the full specs and drawings of an unannounced product. This potentially allowed competitors to either (a) rush a similar product to market first or (b) launch a marketing campaign against Apple's yet unreleased product. In either case, it'll debut a flop, through no fault of the product itself or Apple's marketing.
Rumors are one thing. There's tons of Mac rumor sites and they get left alone by Apple. Because they're mostly about conjecture and vague bits of possible information. This guy posted something very specific, very exact, and very accurate. Apple has every legal and moral right to take him to the cleaners for violating his NDA and harming their ability to compete on a fair playing field.
This has nothing to do with PR or spin. Really, the PR is only going to be negative coming out of this (the ignorant masses will say "look at the big mean corporation beating up on the little guy!"). They are doing this to protect themselves in the future by punishing the ones who leak specific NDA information and discouraging others from doing the same.
Go get 'em!
</faggy Apple fanboy>
Exactly. A subpoena is just a compulsion of information, it os not a charge or even an accusation of wrongdoing on the part of the person(s) served.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
They're suing someone who violated the terms of the NDA. End of story.
how relevant WE think the information is, or how worth hiding/saving/embargoing is irrelevant. There are tons of reasons that a company wants to keep info secret until they're ready for it to be released. They might (legitimately) fear that a competitor could use the info to get the jump on them. Considering how 'cool' people think Apple's stuff is this is likely. Or they may want to maximize the marketing impact of the product update/launch. This is not so insignificant really. As someone who works in marketing, I can say that an "oooh, what's next" buzz can be very helpful, and even valuable bonus when introducing product. To have some employee leak it for nothing more than first posters braggin rights is annoying and they wouldn't have a hard time making the claim that it cost them real money. And if the guy signed an NDA (VERY likely if he's working in product development) then he's screwed. I think the real story here is that they were allowed to subpeona the records of the sites he posted to. One reason why you'll never see me posting stuff that I find out at work (v. big tech/computer firm here).
This is hardly a stunt lawsuit. The person in question undoubtedly signed an NDA and now he has broken it. Ya there are too many lawsuits going on but you might want to pick which one you whine about next time. On top of that Apple is about as innovative as a Desktop computer company gets, exactly what are you whining about there?
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
If you're tired of hearing about lawsuits, then just stop reading about them. They're a fact of life and business. You can not run any business any reasonable amount of time without running into them. They aren't an inherently evil or wrong thing, they're just a way of making sure that people do things or don't do things according to contracts and legal precedents and whatnot.
Sure jackasses like SCO are a destructive abuse of the system, but that doesn't mean anytime a company files a lawsuit against someone that they're making the world a worse place.
Your statement about the execs duking it out behind a woodshed doesn't even make sense in the Apple case that the article is about. They've filed a lawsuit against an individual who violated an NDA. You'd rather they send some goons to track him down and beat the snot out of him?
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Sorry MS fanboys, you can't brand Apple evil yet in retaliation for tarnishing the good name of M$, they are doing something they should and have every right to do.
Except they're not suing their own fans. They're suing someone who is likely from inside the company for leaking information. After all, how could any Average Joe find out such detailed information? It's obvious that the person who leaked the device was someone inside Apple, and anyone with that kind of access would have signed an NDA. It's simple breach of contract. They're merely serving subpoenas to rumor sites in order to get information on who the person might be. They're not suing any sites, just compelling them to release information about who the person might be. An employee becomes a real liability to the company when they start leaking pre-released device specifications to Internet sites, and who knows that he/she won't do it again with a bigger product?
Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
I stand by my original statement. Mac users are ferverently loyal to Apple. They are not going to switch just because there is a new version of PC software that has features promised in a soon to be release Mac software. On the hardware side, I assume you are referring to a specific example but I am unaware of the product you are talking about. I also think that iPod is a good example of a superior product overcoming the first to market players. Actually, in the computer world first to market is often not the one to suceed. Google was not the first search engine. Excel was not the first spreadsheet app.
What Apple is more likely concerned with is the effect that early product rumors has on sales of current stock. Apple is not a company that likes to give discounts or rebates, and seems to minimize the need for this by carefully controlling stock and release of new products. While rumors can be good for market capitalization, credible rumors are bad for profits.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Yeah! The NDA the perpetrator signed? Pointless! Why enforce contracts?
Hell, this idea is so compelling I think I'll stop paying my mortgage! Contracts mean nothing! Yeeehaw!
Subpoenas of source information at all levels of the journalistic hierarchy are causing trouble, lately. Even the New York Times has a couple of reporters in jail for not revealing their sources for stories on the Plame affair (remember, when one of the crooks in the White House illegally outed a deep-cover CIA agent in retribution for whistleblowing by her husband...).
It'll be interesting to see whether OPP, AI, and TS will stand their ground as firmly as the NYT did, or whether they roll over for the courts.