Slashdot Mirror


Apple Defendants Interviewed

evands writes "There's an interview with Desicanuk, one of three named defendants in the Apple lawsuit alleging illegal distribution of a Tiger developer build, and Nessence, one of two administrators of MacTKA, the Mac BitTorrent tracker site where the build was initially posted, up at DrunkenBlog. The interview tells the whole story as a press release can not, from how Apple determined the kids to sue, to lawyers knocking on doors on Christmas Eve, and beyond. 'Collateral Damage' is a fascinating read which humanizes the whole messy situation."

339 comments

  1. Go figure... by Sheetrock · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Some companies view a buggy leak as an opportunity to generate free buzz about the final product. Some view it as an opportunity to use the legal system to bludgeon extreme enthusiasts that have allegedly crossed the line.

    Maybe it's time to look at OS marketshare to see how the different strategies work out.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    1. Re:Go figure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am an Apple fan and shareholder, but I have to agree.

    2. Re:Go figure... by computerme · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "alleged"

      from the link:

      I made the foolish assumption that since I wasn't a developer, and I had a copy that it would be ok if I shared it with 5 or 6 fellow mac fanatics.

      As to the question, did I do exactly what Apple is accusing me of doing? I did share the file. So in that regard yes. But there was no malicious intent.

      STFU.

    3. Re:Go figure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      After the torrent was disabled, some individual leaked it to an open, non-mac site, something I hadn't expected to be done.

      This guy is a 30 year old pre-med student. Either he is flat out lying or he has an actual smart person doing his med school work for him. NFW someone that stupid and naive is in pre-med.

    4. Re:Go figure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No malicious intent? That makes it okay to pirate software? The excuse of "I knew it was wrong but I wasn't doing it maliciously" is a bunch of BS. How exactly do you prove there isn't malicious intent? Hmm? Isn't the fact that you sent it to other people and knew that they didn't have any rights to it an admission of guilt?

      Maybe if you've been on Mars for the last few years you might not understand that piracy = bad but I don't believe I've seen any press releases regarding manned missions to anywhere.

      You're gonna get screwed in the court. Enjoy!

    5. Re:Go figure... by MmmDee · · Score: 1

      Actually, anyone can be pre-med... it's doing well on the MCAT and having good enough grades that gets you into medical school. But that aside, everyone makes dumb mistakes once in awhile. I thought the article was well-written, and while it pushes the limits of credibility, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

      --
      No man's an island, unless he's had too much to drink and wets the bed.
    6. Re:Go figure... by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

      Apple will let him off the hook. What can they gain by suing a med-student accept bad publicity, ecspecially after how the kid has admitted guilt and clearly did not intend for anything bad to happen. He does not have any money. If they let him go with a warning saying 'Just remember not to do it again', they come out looking like the little guys freind and generate a lot of positive PR.

    7. Re:Go figure... by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What can they gain? They can put a stop to the leak-like-a-sieve nature of the developer community, for starters. Of course, the community does not really leak like a sieve; the vast majority of developers stick to their NDAs. But because some done, and because really sophisticated technology has been developed to enable piracy on a vast scale, it looks like the developer community leaks like a sieve.

      And as for this "bad publicity" thing of which you speak ...friend, there is no such thing as bad publicity. As the old saying goes, the only way a company could be damaged in the press is if its CEO is found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.

      This story has gotten Apple on the front page of newspapers --well, their business sections, anyway --worldwide, and has generated public awareness of the upcoming "Tiger" release, all essentially for free. It's good news for Apple as far as PR is concerned.

    8. Re:Go figure... by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Paraphrase: "I posted a torrent of Tiger, sure, but I had no idea this meant that people other than the anonymous chatroom participants I invited to download it would ever get access to it."

      Sorry, not very convincing.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    9. Re:Go figure... by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1


      Maybe it's time to look at OS marketshare to see how the different strategies work out.

      As an "Extreme Mac enthusiast" myself, I concede that Apple's strategy of "surprise releases" is problematic. It punishes enthusiasts. It discourages small developers, who unlike the bigger players (MS and Adobe) don't have as much advance notice that they'll be losing APIs that they depend on. It really discourages enterprise level spending, as those customers like to plan their purchasing strategy for a few years at a time, but Apple won't let them know their product roadmap for the same period.

      OTOH, if Apple planned in the open, it would allow their much bigger competitors to race and likely beat them to market as they could bring more resources to bear. Being innovative is the key to Apple's strategy--so if they announce innovative features but consistenly release second, after their competitors have a chance to develop the feature themselves, they will lose their entire market.

      I think it's truly a dilemma, and I don't know what the way out of it is for Apple. But, as you say, the marketshare is one example of the long-term failing of the secrecy strategy.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    10. Re:Go figure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It discourages small developers, who unlike the bigger players (MS and Adobe) don't have as much advance notice that they'll be losing APIs that they depend on.

      That's bullshit. This entire leak only happened because Apple has a program whereby developers have access to the prerelease builds of the next operating system.

    11. Re:Go figure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That argument doesn't fly for anything but open-source developers. Apple's had versions of Tiger available to developers for a while now so anyone who wants to port their application could've gotten a Tiger Early Stat Kit for Developers.

      I've gotten a few emails from Apple about the kit already and if I was anything but an amateur Apple developer I would've bought it.

    12. Re:Go figure... by Reverberant · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Some companies view a buggy leak as an opportunity to generate free buzz about the final product

      Brent Simmons (a well known and respected Mac developer) released a "buggy" version of NetNewsWire 2.0, presumably to "generate free buzz about the final product."

      What did he get for his trouble? How about being publically berated because a clueless user didn't know the definition of "beta."

      As another poster put it, "you don't get to decide Apple's strategy for them." You're not the one that's going to have to deal with complaints from clueless users that don't understand why the pre-release version of Tiger has borked their mission-critical data.

    13. Re:Go figure... by clarkcox3 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Some companies view a buggy leak as an opportunity to generate free buzz about the final product. Some view it as an opportunity to use the legal system to bludgeon extreme enthusiasts that have allegedly crossed the line.

      This is completely irrelevant. In order to get the pre-release builds, we have to sign a legally-binding agreement that states, among other things, that we will not redistribute the seeds that we get. This has nothing to do with copyright, it has nothing to do with free publicity. This is about contract law, it is about people signing contracts, and entering into agreements that they have no intention of upholding.

      --
      There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
    14. Re:Go figure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's just the little problem that if they let this kid walk, then they lose trade-secret protection for their unreleased product.

    15. Re:Go figure... by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      Your sig is strangely appropriate here :P

    16. Re:Go figure... by utlemming · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're right -- but what they can do is agree to a non-punitive settlement: they let him admit guilt and then enter into a agreement. Something along the lines of turn in anyone that you know is trading Mac software, and then if you do it again then agree to pay so much money. The advantage to it is that Mac gets the good publicity of not burying some med-student and having a forgiving heart, yet they will still have the teeth to protect their intellectual property and trade secrets. Mac fans are usually extremely loyal; Mac has it's own software culture. Even in the Windows culture, Macs are know to be user friendly and stable. So why not capitalize on that image by being a friendly company to a repentent sinner? With a little cleaver legal manuevuering, Apple could walk away looking good and the kid could be pardoned. But that is if they want to. Apple doesn't need, and hopefully doesn't want to look like RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft/BSA, et al.

      --
      The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
    17. Re:Go figure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      He is 30 years old and still pre-med? He clearly isn't the brightest spark in the world.

      This is proven by being so stupid as to think that spreading an NDA copy of copyrighted material would be okay. I mean, it is so obviously wrong, most 10 year olds understand that copying music and games is wrong (even if they do it because they can, and have no money to buy it anyway), so how a 30 year old can't understand that is beyond me.

    18. Re:Go figure... by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      This is completely irrelevant. In order to get the pre-release builds, we have to sign a legally-binding agreement that states, among other things, that we will not redistribute the seeds that we get...This has nothing to do with copyright, it has nothing to do with free publicity. This is about contract law, it is about people signing contracts, and entering into agreements that they have no intention of upholding.

      Well, this rant is rather irrelevant as well since the defendant signed no agreement, he just got it through a friend. So, actually, this has nothing to do with contract law and everything to do with copyright law.

    19. Re:Go figure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      And as for this "bad publicity" thing of which you speak ...friend, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

      Except when that publicity is wrong, wrong, wrong. There's been a lot of misinformation spread about Tiger due to people using unfinished pre-release copies. And a *SHITTON* of speculation on release dates. Apple does not want people to expect Tiger to be ready before it's ready. They say 1H05, but all of the rumor sites say 1Q05 because leaked builds "look finished". If March passes and there's no Tiger, a lot of people are going to bitch and moan about how it's "late". Nevermind that Apple never said it'd be finished in March.

    20. Re:Go figure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It discourages small developers, who unlike the bigger players (MS and Adobe) don't have as much advance notice that they'll be losing APIs that they depend on.

      What small developer doesn't have an ADC membership?

    21. Re:Go figure... by Reverberant · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well, this rant is rather irrelevant as well since the defendant signed no agreement, he just got it through a friend.

      From TFA:

      I was then informed that it was possible to obtain a "free online ADC account". I figured that there couldn't be any harm in signing up for one, so I did.

      He got the seed through ADC - when he joined ADC, he was bound by its terms and conditions. Specifically:

      You certify that pre-release software will only be used for testing and development purposes, and will not be rented, sold, leased, sublicensed, assigned, or otherwise transferred

      I would say that the previous post was right on point.

    22. Re:Go figure... by m50d · · Score: 0

      Yes, it makes it okay. He didn't say he knew it was wrong, as far as I can see. If you do what you think is best you're doing the right thing, regardless of what the law or anyone else says. What more could you expect anyone to do?

      --
      I am trolling
    23. Re:Go figure... by m50d · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's very relevant. He's broken the law. However, that doesn't mean it's necessary for Apple to sue the pants off him. As others have said, if they let him off with a warning it would probably be better for all involved. Screw the law, what matters is what is right. No, I'm not saying what he did was right, just that it wouldn't be right to financially destroy him for it.

      --
      I am trolling
    24. Re:Go figure... by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 0

      With all the people quibbling with you, I'll put in my agreement with your comment.

      Apple's traditional customer base is made of people that are either (1) Extreme Consumer Fetishists [aka "Cult of Mac" types] or (2) So locked in they don't care about product release plans or specs. The top secret/suprise announcement generates buzz and works for these folks.

      However if Apple is going to get more serious about the corporate and educational markets they are going to have to be better about releasing product plans.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    25. Re:Go figure... by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      You know, you're right. I didn't think about that when I posted, but yes, if buzz develops about an unannounced product and that buzz later turns out to be false, it's damaging. That's not really what I meant by "publicity," of course, but you're absolutely right.

      To see this, you really need look any farther than the iPod mini price, or the "home on iPod" feature of Panther.

      Good point.

    26. Re:Go figure... by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      You don't even have to be pre-med to get into med school. You can get into med school with any major provided you can do well on the MCAT.

      Pre-med is actually kind of a stupid major IMHO since you could just as easily get into med school as a Biology major and have a lot of other good career choices that you might not have with pre-med.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    27. Re:Go figure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of you are retarded. When dealing with the law what someone says they were thinking and what they were actually thinking are two different things ALWAYS.

      "YEA BOB I MURDERED HIM AND I ENJOYED IT"

    28. Re:Go figure... by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      He is 30 years old and still pre-med? He clearly isn't the brightest spark in the world.

      This certainly isn't the brightest comment in the world. Not everybody goes to college immediately out of high school, and not everybody goes to med school immediately out of college. Plenty of people do other things before deciding to go to med school.

      Yes, it was a dumb thing to do. But being pre-med does not automatically make you conversant with contract law. He should have read the fine print and realized that he had signed a NDA, but have you really never clicked "accept" on a user agreement without bothering reading through to the end?

    29. Re:Go figure... by sacrilicious · · Score: 1
      It's good news for Apple as far as PR is concerned.

      I disagree. I acknowledge that Apple is operating within the law and that the guy who shared the release was not. But this incident nevertheless serves to increase my distaste with for-profit information scarcity. I worked at Apple for many years in the early nineties and absolutely loved it, but for me the shine of the company has been gone for a while. Life with Apple was beautiful while they were changing the world. Now "changing the world" has given way to the same old money-grubbing penny-pinching corporate game played by everyone else. But I still feel good about linux... and the option of linux, coupled with articles like this one, are why I haven't paid for a mac in five years.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    30. Re:Go figure... by clarkcox3 · · Score: 1
      Did you even read the interview?
      I was then informed that it was possible to obtain a "free online ADC account". I figured that there couldn't be any harm in signing up for one, so I did.

      He signed up for an ADC account; to do so, you need to agree to not distribute any seeded software ...

      I later found a seed-key sitting in my ADC account, sent by that individuals friend. I used it to download the Tiger build 8A323. When I mentioned it to a few people in various IRC chat rooms, they had asked if they could get a copy too. I made the foolish assumption that since I wasn't a developer, and I had a copy that it would be ok if I shared it with 5 or 6 fellow mac fanatics.

      He then downloaded the Tiger seed and distributed it. Seems pretty cut and dry

      --
      There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
    31. Re:Go figure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slow on language skills, computerme? Did anyone cross the line here? Apple may have by using a lawsuit as a punitive measure when they had already succeeded in taking down the file and stopping the leak.

    32. Re:Go figure... by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      this incident nevertheless serves to increase my distaste with for-profit information scarcity

      Anybody who would string that hilarious sentence together is certainly not in Apple's target demographic.

      I haven't paid for a mac in five years

      See what I mean?

      Net loss to Apple: zero.

    33. Re:Go figure... by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      NFW someone that stupid and naive is in pre-med.

      Dude, I spent last semester teaching advanced molecular biology to pre-meds at a rather prestigous university. . . and believe me, there are plenty that are that stupid and naive. Scares the shit out of me, actually. I hope the majority never make it as far as an MD, for all our sakes.

    34. Re:Go figure... by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      Well, a clickthrough TOS and a signed NDA are very different beasts. The grandparent made the "sign a legally-binding agreement" bold which definitely imples the NDA.

    35. Re:Go figure... by eldenf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you do what you think is best you're doing the right thing, regardless of what the law or anyone else says.

      This is complete crap. Why do you think we have laws? It's so that each Joe Blow doesn't get to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. I think they call that Anarchy. People have widely varying ideas of what's best. Not all are legal.

    36. Re:Go figure... by m50d · · Score: 1

      We have laws because we think they make things better, and because some people don't do what they think is best. That's all.

      --
      I am trolling
    37. Re:Go figure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      neener neener, weiner

    38. Re:Go figure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new around here.

    39. Re:Go figure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      >See what I mean?

      You seem to be saying that Apple isn't targeting this guy because he hasn't bought a mac in years... which is a pretty weak argument if you ask me. If Apple's target only includes people who buy macs to start with, why do they need a marketing department?

      >Anybody who would string that hilarious sentence together

      At least the guy has a heart. What have you got, your clever quips and potshots? Ever actually take a position on something worthwhile?

    40. Re:Go figure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to clarify, the guy probably did not get a key *from Apple* in his ADC account. Apple only gives the Tiger seeds to those who pay for the $500/year level, *not* to the online-only gratis level.

      The funniest part from me is where he listened to Apple's lawyers telling him how generous Apple can be, and then being as honest and helpful as he could be. How can someone be so clueless as to take at face value what *someone else's* lawyer says?

  2. Tiger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Releasing a Tiger into the wild is never a good idea, even if you're an experienced Safari user.

    1. Re:Tiger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... I remember Kellogg's Frosties commercials telling me different.

  3. Remain SILENT by spywarearcata.com · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What an idiot. This interview will become evidence against him.

    When charged with a criminal or civil offense:

    1. remain silent;
    2. talk to an attorney;
    3. if case unresolved, goto 1

    Of course in the United States you do not have the right to an attorney if charged with a civil offense.
    You also do not have the right to be silent at trial, unless your statement may tend to incriminate you.

    Note that in the above program, there is no "grandstand / justify / brag to a blogger" statement.

    1. Re:Remain SILENT by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What an idiot. This interview will become evidence against him.

      When charged with a criminal or civil offense:

      1. remain silent;
      2. talk to an attorney;
      3. if case unresolved, goto 1


      He's only an idiot if he's trying to weasel out of it and plead not guilty. By his account, he's accepting responsibility for his actions and thus not an idiot. Hard concept to grasp, I know....

    2. Re:Remain SILENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There should be a new word for stupidity such as this: blablog - blabbering idiot's brag blog.

    3. Re:Remain SILENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O.J. is that you? thanks for the great advice!!!!!! lolomfgrotflmaololoolol!!!!!!1111111

    4. Re:Remain SILENT by grub · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Note that in the above program, there is no "grandstand / justify / brag to a blogger" statement.

      I don't think they are bragging, it's calculated PR. Their responses are worded to present a "nice boy who did wrong" image of themselves. I think the hope is that people read the blog and feel for them which leads to bad PR for Apple and Apple goes easy on them or drops it altogether.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    5. Re:Remain SILENT by spywarearcata.com · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Distinguish "accepting responsibility" from "letting yourself be at the mercy of the plaintiffs."

      You don't have to the do the second in order to accomplish the first. A person with more intelligence and experience might realize that during an emotional situation one's judgment might not be the best, and that even though the person was a central player in the situation he might not know the entire relevant facts and law to judge one's own liability or guilt or to make conclusions about the situation.

      THAT is why you remain silent. Not because you are avoiding responsbility for your acts.

    6. Re:Remain SILENT by Saxerman · · Score: 1
      What an idiot. This interview will become evidence against him.

      So will all the evidence he provided Apple when they called him up and he "answered all the questions they asked regarding how I got the torrent, how long I had seeded it for etc. I was honest and as helpful as I possibly could be."

      The same traits that got him in trouble in the first place, which causes him to say, "I suppose sometimes, honesty has a way of kicking you in the arse."

      --

      A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.

    7. Re:Remain SILENT by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Distinguish "accepting responsibility" from "letting yourself be at the mercy of the plaintiffs."

      This issues aren't whether he did it or not--they have him nailed cold; nothing he's said will dig him in deeper. This is all extenuation and mitigation in advance of the trial.
      He's not putting himself at Apple's mercy--he's trying to get mercy from Apple. There's a difference.

    8. Re:Remain SILENT by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

      Apple has an airtight case, and there's absoloutely no way he can cover a judgement against him or even the costs of a trial. People do funny things when there's no way out.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    9. Re:Remain SILENT by spywarearcata.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And the "calculated PR" inference will be shown to the jury as evidence of a malicious wrong-doer trying to escape his due.

      Note that for many civil offenses that harken back to the old "chancery" courts, you are not even entitled a trial by jury. A judge is far less likely to be swayed by this kind of "MEA CULPA!"

      Apple will just ask the court the simple question "If this guy really wanted to accept responsibility and not grandstand, why didn't he quietly admit his liability to us and humbly accept the damages and permanent injunction that we would formulate for him?"

    10. Re:Remain SILENT by snark42 · · Score: 1

      As near as I can tell all he did was violate an NDA and he's a poor student. What is Apple really going to get out of the guy? In the article they both pretty much say they cooperated with Apple 100% b/c they though Apple would leave them alone then. In the end, Apple sued them anyway.

    11. Re:Remain SILENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's hard to prove.

    12. Re:Remain SILENT by hype7 · · Score: 3, Informative

      yeah, but when you're a legal-naive med student, being told "if you co-operate we're pretty generous" is a good way to get people talking. I hope it gets chucked out, but I suspect it won't.

      Anyway, there's another big lesson to be learned here - for the love of god, BT servers, disable logging. If you have logs enabled then you're only helping out anyone who might sue you.

      -- james

    13. Re:Remain SILENT by Sanity · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What an idiot. This interview will become evidence against him.
      Yeah, how dare some kid not know how to respond when a multinational corporation decides to sue him. They really need to start teaching that in Elementary School.

      (Does anyone else remember when that would be considered a joke rather than a realistic suggestion?).

    14. Re:Remain SILENT by spywarearcata.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, even in his interview he believes that his avowed lack of malicious intent "mens rea" should mitigate liability.

      Google "strict liability tort."

      That is another reason to talk to an attorney before giving interviews--the law is a three-thousand year coral reef and you are just a polyp. Your intuition and perspective suck.

    15. Re:Remain SILENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's not a matter of pleading guilty or not guilty. It's a matter of Apple being able to show that this person is liable for some loss to them (as a tort - negligent or willful misconduct - or in breach of contract via the NDA and Terms of Use).

      On the one hand, what he's said in this interview may be exactly (or no more than) what he said when he conferred with Apple at the beginning (apparently without a lawyer), and this may not be any sort of "admission".

      On the other hand, if Apple is determined to get a jury trial, this kid may be trying to create a record of how sweet and noble he is (which he may, in fact, be) so that his lawyers can present the jury with this record of his public confession and apology, his moral innocence, and his overall contributions to the world. After all, if you were on a jury and you had the big, mean corporation going after the noble pre-med student who's never gotten a speeding ticket in his life, would you typically award the big, mean company a million dollars?

      They may be willing to stipulate to fault or breach (if it goes that far), meaning that the only real issue will be damages, and, if I were a lawyer, I'd be doing everything I could to paint my client as noble, honest, and good so when the jury had to retire to calculate intangible damages, they'd come down on my side.

      Anyway, it's not about guilt or innocence. It's about liability and proving loss.

      Oh, IANAL, and you shouldn't rely on this as legal advice. Go get a lawyer.

    16. Re:Remain SILENT by tallbill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you deal with people who assume that everyone is a liar then you are correct. That seems to be a lot of lawyers and also police.

      For example if you tell what you really did in an altercation then you do have a problem if the other person lied about what happened and they cops think the truth is in the middle.

      I like what the Book of Proverbs suggests: avoid the courts as much as possible.

      However, when asked to speak the truth and you refuse then the assumption is that you have something to hide and the consequences could be far worse.

      So, refusing to talk could be worse. In the case of this kid if he is what he says he is then I think that Apple may decide to let it go and settle. If they don't then they will get bad PR.

      Probably he is a little bit naive, however don't you expect a 21 year old to be just a little?

      He made a mistake, and there have already been consequences to what he did. This shouldn't ruin the rest of his life.

      Oh, if if you remain silent and something bad happens because you didn't provide a warning to the police as they arrest you then what kind of a person does that make you? Silence is one way, but not the only way. The kid in the interview sounded terrified and upset. Did you think he was making it up?

    17. Re:Remain SILENT by spywarearcata.com · · Score: 1

      One can imagine Apple's strategy as follows:

      1. Suffer embarrassment and $$$ financial loss over the years as information is leaked to the press;

      2. Spend $1,000,000 getting a judgment that can't possibly be collected against a student;

      3. Resulting in the publicity in intimidating outsiders in the future from disclosing facts that Apple would prefer not be disclosed: PRICELESS!!!

    18. Re:Remain SILENT by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 1

      You do have the right to remain silent.
      It may be hard to stay silent with the drugs and the voltage.

      Why is it when religions get in charge of a country there is always such "christian" people in charge?

      --
      I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
    19. Re:Remain SILENT by spywarearcata.com · · Score: 1

      We are not talking about geometrical / Euclidean / deductive / Peano / reductio ad absurdum proofs here, we are talking about convincing Joe Schmuck that there is a 50.01% chance that the guy has liability for a tort.

      I think that is the biggest error in intuition technical people have when they encounter the law for the first time.

    20. Re:Remain SILENT by spywarearcata.com · · Score: 1

      It is obvious the Apple's agenda goes farther than this student, otherwise they would have already proposed a settlement and injunction with him.

      So, given that the extent of his responsiblity is basically irrelevant to Apple, this guy should get some advice (namely, a lawyer) before believing that admitting error is the quickest way of resolving the case.

    21. Re:Remain SILENT by Richardsonke1 · · Score: 1
      While jury nullification has happened, it's very rare. This is for multiple reasons:
      • Lawers/defendants are not allowed to mention jury nullification to the jurors. They can be held in contempt of court for this.
      • Very few people even know about jury nullificatoin.
      • If it somehow comes up in a court room, the judge will tell the jury that jury nullification is not allowed and they must follow the charge of the judge.
      Assuming this information, pleading not guilty is a very dangerous thing to do. He's already pled guilty to Apple's lawers. He would be insane to change his story now. Nearly any jury you could pick would find him guilty. Then again, the larger the damages awarded to Apple, the higher chance that he would file for bankruptcy. Not such a bad thing to do for a law student (no house, very little property, etc, rather than a million dollar+ verdict hanging over his head the rest of his life).
      --
      "Men lie."
      "Yeah, about sleeping with other women, but never about bioluminescent plankton."
      -Dan Brown
    22. Re:Remain SILENT by macdaddy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Try opening your eyes a bit and remove the blue-tinted shades. This was an excellent PR move by the defense counsel. The more positive publicity the defendants get the less likely Apple will be to string them up by their nuts. This article (and probably correctly so) paints this defendant as a kid who made a harmless mistake, wants to own up to it, but doesn't want to me made an example of. It did so quite delicately. Coming down hard on the kid once this interview gets broader publicity would be a horribly negative PR move. If there's one thing Apple knows it's the value of good PR. Speaking publicly in this controled manner and ignoring the defendant's rights to prevent self-incrimination was the best move he and his defense counsel could have made. No doubt about it.

    23. Re:Remain SILENT by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      You respond in court. That's what adults do. Childish brats whine and throw fits and tantrums, and look at me, I'm such a poor victim.

      But, all this is irrelevant. The moment he said: I didn't think I was doing anything wrong, we have learned he is a liar.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    24. Re:Remain SILENT by loopdreams · · Score: 1

      Sounds like living in a banana Repbulic.

    25. Re:Remain SILENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Anyway, there's another big lesson to be learned here - for the love of god, BT servers, disable logging. "

      I thought the lesson was "don't use BT to distribute warez," as the article makes clear that disabling logging really wouldn't have helped much due to the nature of BT.

    26. Re:Remain SILENT by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Why is it when religions get in charge of a country there is always such "christian" people in charge?
      It only seems that way because developed countries don't teach much history beyond North American and European history.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    27. Re:Remain SILENT by MntlChaos · · Score: 1

      Uhhh... he did quietly admit his liability to them, then they proceeded to publically sue him.

    28. Re:Remain SILENT by spywarearcata.com · · Score: 1

      If so, then his public strategy may work.

      While it is true Apple would want to set a very public example of him to keep others from violating their NDA, Apple has to balance this with the need to keep a reputation for aggressive vindictiveness from overshadowing the fact that they want to present themselves as a company whose products people have fun with.

      I know Steve Jobs is suffering a potentially life-threatening disease and that Apple has suffered innumerable disclosures which have derailed its competitive strategy, but a swift and just conclusion by Apple will ultimately benefit them more than a grisly head on a pike.

    29. Re:Remain SILENT by justins · · Score: 1
      Of course in the United States you do not have the right to an attorney if charged with a civil offense.

      Huh? I think the difference is just that the state won't pay for your attorney in a civil case. There is some logic to that.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    30. Re:Remain SILENT by spywarearcata.com · · Score: 1

      You are right. I misspoke. If the point is justice, whether civil or criminal, then some basic legal assistance is necessary for all.

      It is entirely unreasonable to expect a layperson to even minimally be able to fairly defend themselves.

    31. Re:Remain SILENT by wolrahnaes · · Score: 1

      "Anyway, there's another big lesson to be learned here - for the love of god, BT servers, disable logging. If you have logs enabled then you're only helping out anyone who might sue you."

      What difference does it make?

      I can log on to a torrent and in mere seconds have a list of people who, by the nature of bittorrent, are all sharing, and thus all guilty of infringement if the torrent happens to be for copyrighted material.

      It would be trivial for a copyright holder to write a script that would spider for torrents which appear to match their material, and have it automatically gather IPs, compare those against a WHOIS database, and log it.

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    32. Re:Remain SILENT by justins · · Score: 1
      If the point is justice, whether civil or criminal, then some basic legal assistance is necessary for all.

      The right to free legal assistance in criminal cases began with an interpretation of the sixth amendment, which begins with the words "In all criminal prosecutions." It is maybe a stretch, but at least reasonable, to interpret the constitution to imply that the state ought to provide counsel to the accused in a criminal case. It just doesn't apply in civil cases.

      More info here:
      http://criminal.findlaw.com/articles/1470.h tml

      It is entirely unreasonable to expect a layperson to even minimally be able to fairly defend themselves.

      Obviously people who can't afford to defend themselves properly in civil cases get shafted. I don't know what the solution to that is. A good judge obviously helps, as do good laws.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    33. Re:Remain SILENT by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 1
      But, all this is irrelevant. The moment he said: I didn't think I was doing anything wrong, we have learned he is a liar.

      Right, because you read his mind while he was doing it, and you know with 100% certainty that he thought he was in fact doing wrong. Um, yeah.

      Whether he should have known he was doing something wrong is a different matter than whether he did in fact know he was doing something wrong.

    34. Re:Remain SILENT by idiotnot · · Score: 1

      This is a bit of an oversimplification -- because a speeding ticket is technically a criminal case, and many states have no right to an attorney in traffic court.

      The rule is.....for any offense where a jail sentence is a possibility, the accused has the right to counsel.

      With that in mind, it's easy to see why it doesn't apply in civil cases; these guys aren't going to jail, but they are going to owe Apple a nice chunk of money. OJ was found liable for the wrongful death of his wife and Ron Goldman, and he's still walking the street.

    35. Re:Remain SILENT by justins · · Score: 1
      This is a bit of an oversimplification -- because a speeding ticket is technically a criminal case, and many states have no right to an attorney in traffic court.

      Well, I should point out that my explanation isn't an oversimplification - the constitution really does say that. Check the findlaw link, honest. :) The fact that traffic cases have their own little corner of the law is pretty weird, actually. I have a lot of theories about that but this probably isn't the place.

      The rule is.....for any offense where a jail sentence is a possibility, the accused has the right to counsel.

      What makes you say that?
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    36. Re:Remain SILENT by Buran · · Score: 1

      And how about wanting to take responsibility for mistakes, and being honest and telling the truth? Everyone assumes this guy is up to something or is just an idiot. Maybe he knows there are downsides to talking about what happened, but maybe he believes he is doing the right thing. We are all so conditioned to believe people are Up To Something that we don't ever look at the fact that there are honest people out there who make honest mistakes.

      And before you say that he's an idiot for not reading everything, let me say that that may be true, that we should read everything, although not everyone does. It's a common mistake. This guy has stepped up and said "I screwed up and I realize it, I want everyone to know what happened, though, since I see all these incorrect assumptions being made about me."

      I once had someone tell me I was the worst person in the world, I was an idiot, I was a jerk not worth being friends with anymore. And for what? Apologizing for past mistakes and wanting to get it off my chest and know I had done the right thing. I still haven't talked to the asshole since, but I can say that I did the right thing. A lot of people (generically speaking, not with anyone particular in mind) would not have done this and would have lied to make themselves look good.

      Sad, really. Especially since the ex-"friend" has been lying about ME to others. Argh. People do suck.

    37. Re:Remain SILENT by Buran · · Score: 1

      To remind the next ten generations that some downloads come at too high a price?

    38. Re:Remain SILENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I made the foolish assumption that since I wasn't a developer, and I had a copy that it would be ok if I shared it with 5 or 6 fellow mac fanatics.

      Since the community was invite only, and the majority of the people who frequent the boards were hardcore mac fans I couldn't see harm in uploading the file.

      Sounds a lot more like someone trying to evade responsibility if you ask me. I couldn't stomach much more of his denial so I stopped reading. Maybe he accepts responsibility later.

    39. Re:Remain SILENT by Baricom · · Score: 1

      Ah, but if they hit the WHOIS database automatically, they too are violating a contract. It's worded differently from service to service. GoDaddy's sounds a little like this:

      You further agree not to use this data to enable high volume, automated or robotic electronic processes designed to collect or compile this data for any purpose, including mining this data for your own personal or commercial purposes.

      If they want to match IP addresses with assignees, they have to do it the old-fashioned way: by typing them in by hand.

    40. Re:Remain SILENT by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1
      Speaking publicly in this controled manner and ignoring the defendant's rights to prevent self-incrimination was the best move he and his defense counsel could have made. No doubt about it.

      Apple's suit against the Tiger leak defendants is a civil lawsuit. It does not involve criminal charges. Therefore, there is no right to remain silent to prevent self-incrimination.

      This was, in fact, stupid if his legal counsel authorized the interview. They could have used the offer to go public to apologize and condemn prerelease version piracy as a bargaining chip in settlement negotiations. Instead, Apple now has a public statement by one of the defendants as evidence that they knowingly and intentionally distributed copyrighted software, which blows away any defense they might have raised that the distribution was accidental, or that legitimate confusion existed about whether they were permitted to do so.

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    41. Re:Remain SILENT by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1

      Whether he should have known he was doing something wrong is a different matter than whether he did in fact know he was doing something wrong.

      Well, no, it isn't. Typically the law requires a "reasonability" standard for knowledge - if a reasonable person should have known that they were doing wrong, that is just as good as saying that a defendant did know.

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    42. Re:Remain SILENT by idiotnot · · Score: 1

      Well, I should point out that my explanation isn't an oversimplification - the constitution really does say that. Check the findlaw link, honest. :) The fact that traffic cases have their own little corner of the law is pretty weird, actually.

      Actually, it makes quite a bit of sense, considering that traffic offenses (in most localities) carry no jail time, and, the state doesn't necessarily provide an attorney for the prosecution of the case. Where I live, the Commonwealth doesn't provide any assistance to the police department in traffic-related matters. When the accused goes to court, it is him versus the complaining officer.

      As for the jail rule, best I can imagine is it comes from Justice Clark's opinion in Gideon v. Wainwright . A fine is not a deprivation of liberty -- it's a deprivation of property. Jail, on the other hand....

      But, where I've worked in the law before, that was always the rule. I did victim/witness work, and one of the hearings I had to notify about was the appointment of counsel hearings.

    43. Re:Remain SILENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they want to match IP addresses with assignees, they have to do it the old-fashioned way: by typing them in by hand.

      Um, dude, do get out of your parent's basement much? The whois DB didn't spring fully formed from the mind of God; it's trivial for Apple to get their own copy.

    44. Re:Remain SILENT by anagama · · Score: 1

      • Well, no, it isn't. Typically the law requires a "reasonability" standard for knowledge - if a reasonable person should have known that they were doing wrong, that is just as good as saying that a defendant did know.

      Not quite. In assigning liability, people are held to a reasonable person standard so people can't argue as a defense "I'm not smart enough to forsee these consequences!" (*) What you get when a reasonable person would avoid doing "A", but a person then does "A", is negligence, not lies.

      What the original poster stated, was that because Defendant failed to forsee the consequences, he is a liar. That's just absurdly and viciously judgmental. Everyone does things that with better foresight, might be avoided. I've done stupid things - it doesn't mean I'm liar when I say I didn't think about the potential negative consequences. It means I'm negligent when I fail to think of them. I'm a liar, Defendant's a liar, everyone is a liar, only if he thinks about the consequences, and then later says he didn't.

      Example, I ran a red light tonight. I didn't mean to, I was just following the truck in front of me - it stopped at the light and then drove through and I just followed along. I was negligent. I was stupid. But the truth is, I didn't even realize what I was doing until I was almost all the way through the intersection. I didn't plan on running the red light and I'm not a liar just because a reasonable prudent driver would have stopped. I'm just doing a lousy job driving today. Fortunately, nothing came of this so my negligent lapse dissapears into the ether. The only time we're ever called on our negligent acts is when something bad happens. How many negligent acts have you done today?

      (*)Note - the "I'm stupid" defense should be distinguished from "competency", e.g., IQ=60.
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    45. Re:Remain SILENT by MrLint · · Score: 1

      What however does make him an idiot is co-operation with his accuser without a written deal.

      Now he can get railroaded (im not making a statement on his actions) with no binding promise to take his co=operation into account.

    46. Re:Remain SILENT by Milton+Waddams · · Score: 1

      Dude, come on, don't be naive. Lawyers know lots about the legal system and lay people don't. You might think you're doing something perfectly legal when you're not, likewise, you might think that these lawyers are doing something really shoddy when they're actually perfectly in their rights. You're better off staying on the safe side with shit like this.

      My advice would be to never talk to the Apple lawyers. Get yourself a lawyer and get them to contact Apple's lawyers and never and any circumstances, talk about the case to anybody but close family members and your own lawyers.

    47. Re:Remain SILENT by tonoko · · Score: 1

      He's only admitting responsibility of his guilt ONLY because he got caught. He's still an idiot.

    48. Re:Remain SILENT by Ath · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Apple's suit against the Tiger leak defendants is a civil lawsuit. It does not involve criminal charges. Therefore, there is no right to remain silent to prevent self-incrimination.

      Close, but wrong. You are correct that, in relation to the purely civil matter, there is no Fifth Amendment right.

      However, you always have your Constitutional right against self-incrimination for criminal prosecution. In this situation, while the lawsuit is a civil one, you can still exercise your Fifth Amendment right if the information being sought would expose you to criminal prosecution. In this case, that is definitely the situation as copyright violations can also be criminally prosecuted.

  4. Go figure...Respect, be damned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Some companies view a buggy leak as an opportunity to generate free buzz about the final product. Some view it as an opportunity to use the legal system to bludgeon extreme enthusiasts that have allegedly crossed the line."

    And maybe some have so little respect for others that they'll violate the rules at every turn. Would it really have killed the Mac community to wait?

    1. Re:Go figure...Respect, be damned. by killjoe · · Score: 1

      I don't know. The tiger pre-release is very buggy right now. There are lots of screen issues, fuzzy text, occational scrambling of the windows etc.

      I can certainly understand how apple does not want this released into the public because it will give the product an undeserved bad reputation.

      People (especially BOFHs) will not say "oh it's a pre-release of course it doesn't work perfectly". They will instead say "the next version of mac os x sucks".

      All developers who signed up for the pre-release program had to sign an NDA. There is no excuse for releaseing a pre-release into the wild.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    2. Re:Go figure...Respect, be damned. by Agent__Smith · · Score: 0

      As a recent convert to MAC, it saddens me to see the company stomping the life out of a couple of kids. They didn't cost Apple anything at all. I would have loved to have a BETA copy of tiger to play with myself. As the canuk stated, it would have been because of my impatience, and desire to play with some new features (before everyone else makes it sweeter yet) and I would still have bought the real deal once available. I don't have any unregistered or illegal files at all on my Mac.

      Apple should think twice about feeding on it's own! Had I read this 3 months ago, I would have thought twice about switching over from a PC. Experimentation is half the fun of computers, and if you are going to pursue and punish curiosity so severely then maybe you aren't a company I wish to do business with.

      Apple, you may be the BEST at what you do, but you are by no means the only choice out there. I lived a lot of years with a PC and found it more than adequate, and it would not be a huge problem to return to that. I have been singing your praises from the rooftops, but if you prove to be a heartless company, destroying a couple of kids when you really have nothing to gain by doing so, then that will cease quick fast and in a hurry!

      --
      "It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones
    3. Re:Go figure...Respect, be damned. by GFono · · Score: 1

      Its not because they downloaded Tiger so much as the fact that they distributed it

    4. Re:Go figure...Respect, be damned. by duncangough · · Score: 1

      Exactly right - in the same way that every one think that the ned headless iMac is going to be cheap, lining up as a '2nd PC' alternative.

      Playaholics: Free online games and scoreboards

    5. Re:Go figure...Respect, be damned. by Durandal64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thank you. I'm a member of Apple's OS X Update Seed program, so I get seeded with updates to 10.3 to test and report back on before released. Most recently, I was testing 10.3.7. But I was invited to that seed by Mike Bombich because of my work with ActiveDirectory in my school's environment. Do I run around leaking information about those seeds or the actual seeds themselves? No. I was cordially invited by Mike Bombich into the program and signed an NDA. If I leaked information on the updates or the software itself, it would reflect badly on Mike. And what would I gain from such a leak? Nothing. I'd have a little closet prestige. Whoop-die-do.

      This guy took advantage of a favor that a friend did for him and distributed the Tiger beta to other people. Whoever he got the beta from probably didn't want him giving it to five or six other people. That's a breach of trust between him and the company a well as him and his friend. Now his buddy could potentially get in trouble for it. He's caused a huge fucking mess because he figured he'd play Robin Hood. Well, now he's getting what came to him. Maybe now he'll take implied trusts and legal documents with his signature on them more seriously.

    6. Re:Go figure...Respect, be damned. by soft_guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I, too, am a long time Mac developer. I have a premier account at work and I've been getting these seeds since the early 90s.

      At every conference we get the "talking to" from Apple about not doing this. I have never done anything like this and I suspected that real developers would not. This guy was not a developer - he was a power user who had no real need for to have the seed.

      I've got users to think about. I need these seeds prior to the release of the OS to make sure that my products aren't going to break. While I like looking at new features too, my main reason for having isn't some kind of weird Apple pr0n which is apparently what this guy was after.

      It would be a shame if Apple had to end a program like this because of irresponsible users.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    7. Re:Go figure...Respect, be damned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really read the article? Your description of what happened is off.

    8. Re:Go figure...Respect, be damned. by Durandal64 · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Some guy illegally acquired the seed and distributed it to other people who did not have proper authorization to have it either. What part of that is "off"?

    9. Re:Go figure...Respect, be damned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just wanted to see if you responded to AC posts which denigrate your position while supplying no evidence. Smile.

    10. Re:Go figure...Respect, be damned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I would have loved to have a BETA copy of tiger to play with myself.

      Masturbating to BETA software?? You sir, are a sick, sick puppy.

  5. this guy violated his nda.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure what the huge deal is, the guy admits he violated his nda. FYI, companies don't put those before downloads for kicks, they're to protect their property. Some socalled "smart" people are pretty stupid sometimes.

  6. What's Messy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The guy lied, violated his NDA and posted valuable copyrighted material which he did not own to a public site. Let him twist in the wind.

    1. Re:What's Messy? by Sanity · · Score: 1
      The guy lied, violated his NDA and posted valuable copyrighted material which he did not own to a public site. Let him twist in the wind.
      Yeah, he really deserves to be receive more punishment than most rapists do.

      IP law is fucked up. It is punishing children for doing what they are told to do on Sesame Street.

    2. Re:What's Messy? by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      "To be receive?" Never comment angry.

      And last time I checked -- granted, it's been many, many years --children are not taught by Sesame Street to take things that aren't theirs. I seem to recall that a fair bit of time was spent on the opposite lesson.

      Maybe these kids' problem is that they didn't watch enough TV when they were little.

    3. Re:What's Messy? by smurfi · · Score: 1

      Whether he actually lied is up to debate. Whether an NDA makes sense if you can just click your way through it, too. So is exactly what kind of monetary value Apple actually lost because of that leak, if any.

      Anyway.

      Killing a guy's future for something like that, malicious intent or not, believable interview or not, NDA or not, is Just Plain Wrong. Save that for real criminals who do real damage, OK?

    4. Re:What's Messy? by Changa_MC · · Score: 1
      He didn't take what wasn't his, they gave it to him. He just followed the Sesame Street rules and shared with his friends. Not realising that you can face charges for passing out for free software that Apple was also passing out for free.

      Hopefully, charges will be dropped now that he said he's sorry and won't do it again.

      --
      Changa hates change.
    5. Re:What's Messy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh and I guess you have read every EULA, readme.txt and copyright.txt and so forth before clicking next?

      dumbass...

    6. Re:What's Messy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And by 'free' you of course mean 'with a $500' developer account.

    7. Re:What's Messy? by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      He didn't take what wasn't his, they gave it to him.

      No. First of all, he wasn't a member of the developer program, so he didn't receive a copy from Apple. Second, it wasn't his to give away, no matter how it got it, and he knew it. Third, saying that he's somehow totally innocent and that somebody else is to blame doesn't move the focal point of the discussion; it just expands it to include more wrongdoers.

      Not realising that you can face charges for passing out for free software that Apple was also passing out for free.

      Apple wasn't passing it out for free. In order to get it, you had to be a registered developer, which carries an annual fee. Saying that Apple was handing it out for free is like saying that Newsweek just hands out their magazines to people for free, ignoring the fact that the people who get them "for free" paid a subscription fee up front.

      Hopefully, charges will be dropped now that he said he's sorry and won't do it again.

      Not in any world I live in, friend. Hopefully this idiot will be stuck with a very, very painful fine that will be sufficient to dissuade him or anybody who hears his story from trafficking in stolen goods.

    8. Re:What's Messy? by NormalVisual · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Saying he's sorry and won't do it again doesn't mitigate the damage Apple has suffered at the hands of this well-meaning idiot. If he's of legal age to engage in a contract, then he's also old enough to read what he's agreeing to, and ignorance is no defense.

      Apple was *not* passing out the software "for free" - the seed key he used to obtain the build was not part of his free ADC membership, and was sent to him by another idiot that chose not to honor *his* NDA. He had no legal right to the build to begin with - the ADC memberships that get you pre-release versions of stuff cost a fair bit of money, and he's gone on record as saying that he was trying to find a way to get his hands on Tiger without actually having to pay for it. Once having gotten that, he proceeded to give it to some friends. For him to say that "I didn't know I wasn't allowed to do that" paints him either as disingenuous, or someone that just doesn't have a clue. Neither is a particularly good quality to see in someone that wants to be a doctor.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    9. Re:What's Messy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fucking asshole, this guy spends time is a medical student and volunteers and hospitals and shit.

      What the fuck have you ever done .. moron? You're a fucking loser that trolls on slashdor.

    10. Re:What's Messy? by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 1
      Hopefully this idiot will be stuck with a very, very painful fine that will be sufficient to dissuade him or anybody who hears his story from trafficking in stolen goods.

      A "very, very painful fine" could financially cripple him for the rest of his life, for a mistake of comparable magnitude to mistakes made by pretty much every young person (excepting your own perfect self, I'm sure). I'm not saying Apple should just blow it off altogether, but a little mercy isn't going to kill them, either, and he's already going to think twice before redistributing copyrighted material. What actual good will come out of punishing him to the maximum extent possible?

    11. Re:What's Messy? by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

      No, but I read through all legally-binding contracts which have penalties for breaking them.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    12. Re:What's Messy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, people will think twice about doing this again? Apple won't lose potentially millions of dollars in sales in the future?

    13. Re:What's Messy? by adpowers · · Score: 1

      Umm, I believe an NDA is usually signed, you don't just click "Okay".

    14. Re:What's Messy? by zangdesign · · Score: 1

      A "very, very painful fine" could financially cripple him for the rest of his life

      Just because you don't consider the consequences beforehand, doesn't mean you shouldn't face them afterwards.

      but a little mercy isn't going to kill them

      But what does it gain them? Some warm fuzzies?

      What actual good will come out of punishing him to the maximum extent possible

      Perhaps it will serve as a warning to others with similar intentions. More than likely, the person who originally set this whole thing up by providing the seed to his ADC account has been warned off, or perhaps even fired.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    15. Re:What's Messy? by Trillan · · Score: 1

      Corporations don't decide who to prosecute. This is a civil case, not a criminal one. We don't even know yet what kind of damages Apple is seeking.

    16. Re:What's Messy? by smurfi · · Score: 1

      In that case, either he lied (bad) or he didn't violate the NDA -- the person who sent him the image did (good).

      I suppose we'll find out in the trial...

    17. Re:What's Messy? by adpowers · · Score: 1

      Either way, they'll try to track it back to the person who violated the NDA and punish them heavily. This guy will still be punished for being an idiot and posting it on BT.

  7. How did THAT happen? by Saxerman · · Score: 5, Insightful
    What stood out for me was:

    When I mentioned it to a few people in various IRC chat rooms, they had asked if they could get a copy too. I made the foolish assumption that since I wasn't a developer, and I had a copy that it would be ok if I shared it with 5 or 6 fellow mac fanatics.

    And then he's surprised when it escapes out in the wild. Don't they teach kids the safe sex warnings anymore? You're not just sharing with all your friends, you're sharing with all their friends too.

    --

    A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.

    1. Re:How did THAT happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only on /. would someone compare sharing an operating system with sex.

    2. Re:How did THAT happen? by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      You know something, though? Most people, when they do decide to have sex with someone, don't spend an awful lot of time concerning themselves with obtaining a complete, accurate list of everyone else their partner has slept with, and who those people slept with, etc. (If this really was a big concern, most people would probably end up never having sex at all....)

      The fact is, most things in life that are in any way, shape or form "rewarding" involve a certain level of risk. A risk-free life is a pretty dull, meaningless existance.

      I don't think this guy was saying he never had an idea what he did might be "illegal". Rather, he never thought sharing a file once, among a small group of friends with similar interests, would lead to him getting in any trouble for it.

      That's probably a fair assumption, too, really. He just had the unfortunate luck of Apple being on a bit of a crusade to lock down the "leaks" of info on their new products right now - and being smart enough to track down people using BitTorrent.

      IMHO, this whole thing is yet another example of the problems we face when we get overly concerned about the "letter of the law" vs. the "intent of the law". Does Apple have the *legal right* to enforce their NDA? Absolutely! Does that mean they shouldn't take individual situations into account when prosecuting violations of the NDA? Well.... you tell me, but as I pointed out on the "blog" site itself earlier, it's AWFUL hypocitical of Jobs if he doesn't. (Both Wozniak and Jobs were avid phone phreakers back in the Apple //e days, so "stealing" long distance phone service seemed to be "ok' with them as long as they weren't caught. Funny how things change when you come into some money though, eh?)

    3. Re:How did THAT happen? by node+3 · · Score: 1

      And then he's surprised when it escapes out in the wild.

      By the same logic, should Apple also realize that once they release Tiger to developers, that it's out in the wild?

    4. Re:How did THAT happen? by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1

      (If this really was a big concern, most people would probably end up never having sex at all....)

      Back when it really was a big concern, people tended to marry those with whom they wished to have sex. Funny how reality keeps intruding on convenience.

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
  8. It's nice to be loved by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

    This is like people who share music. Isn't it amazing to be in a business where people want your product so much they risk going to jail to get it?

    1. Re:It's nice to be loved by stewby18 · · Score: 0

      So if someone steals my car, I should be pleased at the compliment, since it shows how cool my car is?

      Yes, yes, spare me the comments that it's not a perfect analogy and the IP infringement != theft rants. The point is that having people want to get your stuff illegally is not better than having people like your stuff enough to, you know, actually pay for it so you can make more. It's good to be in a business where people line up outside of stores for release parties or preorder your stuff long before it's going to be available, not to be in a business where people warez your stuff.

    2. Re:It's nice to be loved by Master+Bait · · Score: 1

      They've got you thinking you can go to jail for that...

      --
      "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
      --Tom Schulman
  9. Rather flawed reasoning... by lxt · · Score: 1

    When asked why he leaked the build, he replies "I assumed it wouldn't be a big deal if I shared this with like minded mac fans"...rather a weak defence, because it's kind of like saying "I didn't think it would matter if I uploaded this film / mp3 before the release date as long as I only shared it with fans of said film/music"... ...although he doesn't mention it in the article, I'm sure at least a very small part of it was to do with his ego - "I have 10.4, I'm special" etc. etc. I'm not saying that was his primary reason, but it must have contributed.

    1. Re:Rather flawed reasoning... by DarthWiggle · · Score: 1

      He may not care a bit about defending on the issue of liability. He may only care about defending on the issue of calculating damages (how much loss did he really cause Apple?) or about appearing sweet and naive in front of a jury. Go back, re-read the interview for instances where he talks about how nice he is, and then ask yourself how a jury might react to that.

      IANAL.

    2. Re:Rather flawed reasoning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pre-release builds that have been widely distributed to developers (like this one) have very little value to be lost by their being distributed further. I am an avid Mac fan and can say that no one uses the pre-release builds of Mac OS X once the purchasable version comes out. Apple constantly fixes bugs and improves their software between builds. Not having access to the regular updates available if you use the purchasable version is reason enough to make sure you get the purchasable version as soon as it comes out. Apple Legal is being a tool if they take this case further.

  10. How do I get a copy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All he did was sign up for a free ADC account and he got tiger? Anyone know who that worked out? Are paid ADC members allowed to give out a key to other ADC members?

    1. Re:How do I get a copy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See http://developer.apple.com/prereleasesoftware/

      "ADC Select and Premier memberships include five (5) ADC Software Seed Keys. An "ADC Software Seed Key" is required to access pre-release software. These keys may be transferred to other developers, used as often as needed, and are valid for one year from the date of purchase of the original membership. Any transfer of assets may be made only to another ADC member at your company."

    2. Re:How do I get a copy? by SSpade · · Score: 1

      All he did was sign up for a free ADC account and he got tiger?

      No. A paying member of the ADC programme sent him a copy (well, actually sent him a key that allowed him to download it) in violation of that members ADC agreement.

      Are paid ADC members allowed to give out a key to other ADC members?

      ADC members are not allowed to give out download keys to anyone other than others in the same organization (which probably means "same employer" - I suspect that being a member of the "Apple Warez Kollektive" wouldn't apply...).

      Two people violated contracts with Apple - the paid developer who shared the download key with someone they weren't authorized to and the idiot who used that key to download a pre-release of Tiger and then uploaded it to the world for all to enjoy.

      I suspect Apple wouldn't have cared, even if they'd noticed, if he hadn't uploaded it to the world. But releasing warez copies of pre-release software? You have to stomp on that, even if it's just done by someone being stupid, or everyone will start doing it.

    3. Re:How do I get a copy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me get this straight. Someone paid $500 for a special membership that allowed access to prerelease software. With this he got 5 keys that would allow 5 ADC accounts (for members 'at your company') to access the Tiger builds. Then he gave one of his 5 keys to 'a friend of a friend' who used it to get a Tiger build and torrent it.

      So 1) We have an idiot who pays $500 for a membership, then gives out his seed keys, and 2) another idiot who signs up for an account with his real name then uses a leaked key to steal a beta build and distribute it. These guys ain't too bright.

  11. Re:This begs the question by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Because I am not the real Roland Piquepaille, I just use his name to draw attention to his scam. But apparently, even posting normally as I do (check my posting histoyy), my /. nick is enough to mark me as a permanent troll.

    Lovely isn't it?

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  12. I have the Legal Documents by ramdac · · Score: 3, Informative

    here: http://www.ramdac.org/article/id/256.html I remember 3 weeks ago when Nessence told me Apple called him on his cell, that this would get nasty. He sent me the legal documents Apple had sent before he came over last night to talk about it.

    1. Re:I have the Legal Documents by ffub · · Score: 1

      And you thought, seeing as they were just friends of yours and you're not a lawyer, that it'd be okay to share it with 5,000 or 6,000 slashdotters.

    2. Re:I have the Legal Documents by ramdac · · Score: 0

      they sent it to me to do just that. share it.

  13. Re:This begs the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, that's not the real Roland Piqupaille....

  14. Insightful??? Was:Remain SILENT by IO+ERROR · · Score: 1
    From TFA:

    Do you think what you did was wrong?

    At the time, no. If I did think what I was doing was wrong, I wouldn't have done it. Looking back on it, realizing that I did break an NDA, and I was part of a scandal involving one of my favourite companies, yes I do think what I did was wrong and I understand why they are suing me. It sucks being the bad guy in a situation, and I honestly do regret what I did. But hindsight as they say is 20/20.

    You did violate your ADC agreement... Do you think what Apple is doing is wrong?

    When I signed up for the free ADC account, I didn't read the agreement. I suppose a lot of us don't read word for word every thing you agree to.

    I never read agreements that I signed when I install other software or when I sign up for things like Hotmail, etc. I did violate the NDA (a term I've become incredibly familiar with over that last few days), so in that regards I think Apple isn't in the wrong. The violation of the NDA isn't my qualm with this whole mess. My problem is their accusation that I did so maliciously.

    My intent was never to hurt the company in anyway and if I did, I'm truly sorry. Like a lot of people, I just wanted to mess around with a few cool features (i.e. Dashboard, etc.) in Tiger, and was too impatient to wait until the final release. Was that a mistake? Sure. But it was one made without some agenda to inflict harm.

    I've never been one to avoid owning up to my mistakes, and I'm not about to start now. I do hope that whatever punishment they come up will be fair, and that they keep in mind that I am in college, a year from medical school, and have limited resources.

    He's chosen the moral high road of owning up to his mistake, and for that I have to commend him. What I can't say is whether Apple will consider their actions in that light. Given that the lawyers are already involved...

    Maybe he could just personally and publicly apologize to Steve Jobs, and both sides can drop the matter.

    --
    How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    1. Re:Insightful??? Was:Remain SILENT by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      I'm sure in the future when he's sued for malpractice after signing an order he didn't bother to read, the family of the deceased patient will drop their lawsuit when he admits his mistake, too.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
  15. Why arent we teaching kids that stealing is wrong? by glrotate · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whence came this sense of entitlement?

  16. The dev is at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The one who is really responsible for this incident is the developer who released the seed-key!

    You can't release those to people outside the company. He should be the one targetted in this suit, not some poor college student. He should face disciplinary action (and hopefully fired!). Keeping this guy around will just mean it will happen again! He has no problems handing out seed-keys, as mentioned in the article.

    Apple really should fire the dev.

    Well, for all we know, maybe they already have. But really, this case is like breaking the bottle after the Genie has left it.

    1. Re:The dev is at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Why are you posting when you don't know what you're talking about? You don't have to work for apple to get a seed key. Everybody can get these previews if they pay $500. So the whole "trade secret" thing is just BS, if you ask me.

    2. Re:The dev is at fault by stewby18 · · Score: 1

      "The company" = "Your company". The ADC rules say you can only distribute your keys to people within your company. Settle down.

    3. Re:The dev is at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Apple really should fire the dev."

    4. Re:The dev is at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean 'corking the bottle'?

    5. Re:The dev is at fault by alain94040 · · Score: 1
      You're correct! I read the complaint and that's actually one of the legal holes in Apple's lawsuit.

      The guy who gave the seed keys is for sure guilty. The one who signed up for a basic ADC membership, which by definition cannot obtain seed keys, shouldn't be sued for using seed keys. It sounds more like Apple has a bug in their ADC software and they let non-authorized ADC users access beta software.

      Apple's argument is also very weak regarding damages, plus there are quite a few paragraphs that will be easily striken.

      In the end, I'd say a fair punishment would be some kind of community service. Those guys did something wrong.

      Alain.

    6. Re:The dev is at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one who signed up for a basic ADC membership, which by definition cannot obtain seed keys, shouldn't be sued for using seed keys. It sounds more like Apple has a bug in their ADC software and they let non-authorized ADC users access beta software.

      Um, that's total crap. Free ADC memberships don't come with seed keys, but they are certainly allowed to recieve seed keys. If keys weren't transferable, there wouldn't be any reason to give 5 of them out with the more expensive memberships.

  17. Proceed with caution by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't want to get accused of shooting the messenger here, but it's worth noting that the author of "Drunken Blog" has, in the recent past, been caught posting lengthy tracts of stuff that just isn't true.

    He wrote a lengthy rant about interface scalability in Mac OS X, bemoaning the fact that Tiger doesn't do Thing X that he thinks is really incredibly important, and explaining why everybody at Apple who disagrees with him is obviously an idiot.

    Then along came the commenters who, probably by bending their NDAs, explained to him that Tiger does, in fact, do X, and that the author doesn't have the first idea what he's talking about.

    Is this relevant to the subject at hand? Almost certainly not. But I'm a big believer in context, so I felt like maybe somebody would appreciate it if I shared what I knew of it.

    1. Re:Proceed with caution by evands · · Score: 1

      After talking with drunkenbatman (author of "Drunken Blog") I conversed at length with Desicanuk, the defendant interviewed. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply, but there is definitely not "stuff that just isn't true." The interview is real, and drunkenbatman has never come across to me as anything but sincere.

    2. Re:Proceed with caution by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      I wasn't trying to imply anything, as I specifically said. I just think that when people get news about something, they need to know a little bit about the source from which they got it. I had information, so I shared it so people could decide for themselves whether to trust the source to be truthful and unbiased.

    3. Re:Proceed with caution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TROLL this is just strange the situation you mention is here (i think) in high ppi problem. But what is weird is it is obvious you are a reader of his because some of your sentences are lifted straight from his recent writings.... artful troll!

    4. Re:Proceed with caution by drunkenbatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't want to get accused of shooting the messenger here, but it's worth noting that the author of "Drunken Blog" has, in the recent past, been caught posting lengthy tracts of stuff that just isn't true.

      This seems to be about High PPI problem, a blog post I put up about increasing pixel density and resolution independence and the problems faced with moving to the new models. There was one part that I considered to be wrong: which was that Apple didn't seem to be working on it going by what had been released publicly and what I knew to be in Longhorn and newer versions of X.

      Is this relevant to the subject at hand? Almost certainly not. But I'm a big believer in context..

      This line was from my "Yin and Yang" post, which means I probably pissed you off somehow. No problem if you have a problem with me, but using it to take shots at a kid probably isn't kosher.

      Personally, I'm kinda honored to have my own hate club. :)

    5. Re:Proceed with caution by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      This line was from my "Yin and Yang" post, which means I probably pissed you off somehow.

      No kidding? Hand to God, I had no idea. I've never read your site but for the articles I specifically referred to. I thought -- if I may be blunt --that you kind of made an ass of yourself by writing at mind-numbing length about a topic about which you clearly knew nothing, so I didn't bother to go back. It's nothing personal; I just wasn't interested in that kind of spouting off.

    6. Re:Proceed with caution by drunkenbatman · · Score: 1

      Strange how you seem to follow my blog around from site to site then isn't it? :) It's humorous, and I personally don't care, but this situation just doesn't seem to be the place for your agenda and I'm sorry you don't seem to realize it.

    7. Re:Proceed with caution by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      Strange how you seem to follow my blog around from site to site then isn't it?

      Do what now?

      this situation just doesn't seem to be the place for your agenda

      For my "agenda?" As I said, my "agenda" was to share what context I knew, because it's good for people to make up their own minds about things.

      Why are you giving off a paranoid vibe here?

  18. Posterboys for Stupidity by Bug-Y2K · · Score: 1, Insightful
    To avoid becoming a posterboy for stupidity:

    First: Don't "assume it is OK to (insert stupid action here)" ASSUME? Didn't you READ anything Apple states about being an ADC member, or in the READ ME, etc???

    Second: As soon as you catch wind that somebody, anybody is making legal noises concerning you, RUN DON'T WALK TO OBTAIN LEGAL COUNSEL!!!

    Finally: Don't frikkin blather on endlessly to some blogger, proving how FSCKING STUPID you really are. What a collection of idiots.

    BTW: The first words out of an attorney's mouth would be essentially "STFU."

    Yet another scientific theory proven correct.

    This isn't, as the story states "a fascinating read which humanizes the whole messy situation" unless stupidity and ignorance are the true measure of "Humanity."

    1. Re:Posterboys for Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't, as the story states "a fascinating read which humanizes the whole messy situation" unless stupidity and ignorance are the true measure of "Humanity."

      Umm, yeah.

  19. he probably knew what he was doing is wrong... by jxyama · · Score: 4, Insightful
    >After about 3 hours of seeding, a Mod for the site disabled the torrent. I assumed that there must have been something wrong with the file I uploaded, so I stopped my seed and deleted the file. I didn't even get a chance to install it.

    so he goes through all the trouble of finding out about ADC to get the seed, but as soon as the torrent is disabled by a mod, he "assumes" that the file is messed up and deletes it? sounds more like he deleted it because he got fearful in getting an indirect confirmation that leaking it was wrong...

    1. Re:he probably knew what he was doing is wrong... by Rinisari · · Score: 1

      Desicanuk seems to, from his testimony, not know enough about such legal matters to even try to be so weasily. You or I might attempt to try something like that, but it would come back to bite us in the ass.

      This was an honest mistake. He wants to get over it. He didn't realize what he did was wrong. There is no sneaky dishonesty. The only thing he did wrong was disobey a click-through NDA.

  20. Copyright infringement != Stealing by Sanity · · Score: 0

    Clearly nobody taught you that copyright infringement isn't stealing. Stealing is when you deprive someone of property, who is deprived of their property with copyright infringement?

    1. Re:Copyright infringement != Stealing by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I think calling it copyright infringement is still a weaseling out by many people because somehow that suddenly makes it all OK.

    2. Re:Copyright infringement != Stealing by Sanity · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I think calling it copyright infringement is still a weaseling out by many people because somehow that suddenly makes it all OK.
      Calling it copyright infringement is calling it exactly what it is.

      Calling it "stealing" is weaseling language used by people who want to make something relatively harmless seem like a serious crime worthy of serious punishment.

      I hate to blow your mind, but it isn't.

    3. Re:Copyright infringement != Stealing by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      Game, set and match to the user "glrotate." Thank you, "Sanity" for providing a live demonstration of his point.

    4. Re:Copyright infringement != Stealing by stewby18 · · Score: 1

      So running out on, say, a haircut, is ok then? After all, you haven't taken any of the barber's property. Also, there's nothing wrong with not paying medical bills, right?

    5. Re:Copyright infringement != Stealing by Carlos+Laviola · · Score: 1

      It's still not stealing.

    6. Re:Copyright infringement != Stealing by EddWo · · Score: 1

      Well you are stealing some of the barbers time and effort he expended cutting your hair, but you are also giving the barber some of your property in the form of excess hair. It depends on whether the barber thinks value of your excess hair he now posesses is worth the time he spent cutting it off your head.

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
    7. Re:Copyright infringement != Stealing by Fallen_Knight · · Score: 1

      I think it is theft of services? Either what its not "stealing"/"theft" in the shoplifting sense and is called something diffrent.

      The barber has to prove that he performed a service at a reasonable price at your request for you to be convicted, and sense its 5000 there would be next to no punishment. hell if you steal a CD from a store its 5000 and is petty theft, get less time for stealing 10 CDs then shareing them on the net.

      either way still diffrent copyright infringement.

      Anyone know what it is called?

    8. Re:Copyright infringement != Stealing by m50d · · Score: 1
      No, it's not ok. But it's not stealing. It's theft of services from a real person, which happens to be just as bad, but it's not stealing.

      It's not ok to murder people, but that still doesn't justify calling murder stealing.

      --
      I am trolling
  21. Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It always amazes me how Apple gets treated on /.

    Let me play devils advocate here for a minute.
    We have a company here that's suing 21 year old mac fans for participating in the illegal sharing of a beta build of their OS.

    We have a company here that's extracting information from someone they are about to sue under false pretence.

    We have a company here that's suing a side aimed at their fans because the site spreads some rumors about new products.

    We have a company that refuses to use an open standard, or even simply to license their technology to other companies, in order to leverage the huge market share they have in one area to boost sales in an other area.

    We have a company that is heavily promoting software patents and is heavily involved in fileing trivial software patents.

    We have a company here that is taking open source technology for their new browser, but then refuse to give the changes they make back in a way that might be useful to the original open source developers.

    And yet it seems, Apple is still loved by the /. crowd, that would tear any other company apart if it engaged in anything similar.

    1. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are suing a 21 year old idiot. Keeping idiots at bay is a good thing.

    2. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a company here that's suing a side aimed at their fans because the site spreads some rumors about new products.

      Hightly detailed tech specs and documentation != rumors.

    3. Re:Amazing by hunterx11 · · Score: 4, Informative
      We have a company here that is taking open source technology for their new browser, but then refuse to give the changes they make back in a way that might be useful to the original open source developers.

      Well that one's just a lie.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    4. Re:Amazing by toonerh · · Score: 1

      Dear Anonymous Coward:

      Have you read KDE'S Konqueror Changelog? No, just a lying rant!

      http://konqueror.kde.org/news.php#itemKonqueror33R eleased

    5. Re:Amazing by sriram_2001 · · Score: 1

      Hmm..wonder how Slashdot would react if Microsoft sues all those pirated XP uploaders. I remember the comments when MS went after people in the UK. Of course, since Apple does it, it has to be fair - though those people(the folks who spread pirated WinXP) committed the very same crime. Nice

    6. Re:Amazing by Hamstij · · Score: 1

      We have a poster that can't spell.

    7. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We have a company here that's suing 21 year old mac fans for participating in the illegal sharing of a beta build of their OS."

      Why include the age here? Would it make a difference if the person being sued was a 45 year old? Apple isn't suing a child of 14 years old, but an adult. Are you implying that a 21 year old is not capable of understanding the law?

    8. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love it, personally. If people pirated Windows less, less people might use the software, and either way it's still illegal and one of those few lawsuits that go on that clearly have a right to exist.

    9. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Look at the hardware and software requirements for what is listed in your link. They work with OSX which is Apple that runs on Apple hardware. Notice what they gave back? You can only use it on something you bought from Apple that they control. Everything they have that resembles open source requires one or more of the following, Apple hardware, Apple OSX (which only runs on Apple hardware), or Apple media formats which all require payment to Apple. I completely agree with the AC parent. Not to beat a dead horse but the whole iPod/iTunes issue is a perfect example. How can someone actually claim that Apple actively locking you out of the choice of competeing online music providers and requiring an iPod to use iTunes is in the best interest or an advantage for the end users with the products? That makes absolutley no sense at all. I have nothing against Apple and what they are doing and anyone is free to make a decision on what company they buy products from to fit thier needs. I just think it is a little odd that so many people are blinded by Apple that they actually defend them and turn the story around to make it look like Apple always has the best interest of the consumers in mind.

    10. Re:Amazing by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, if you live in the United States, you would realize that "The Law" has become nothing more than a set of rules and regulations and restrictions codified in a unique written language (i.e., legalese), that is taught only in special schools, and while loosely-based upon standard American English is effectively incomprehensible to anyone not properly trained in "The Law", and requires a considerable degree of "interpretation" by those so trained in order to have even the remotest application or relevance to the life and times of the common man. Sort of like theologians and the Bible, you might say. The people that write these complicated, unreadable, Draconian "Non Disclosure Agreements" and "End User License Agreements" and so forth are perfectly aware that even those people masochistic enough to actually read them in their entirety will likely be unable to fully comprehend them and end up in violation anyway regardless of intent. The only purpose of said agreements is to be able to claim, should some infraction actually occur, that the alleged perpetrator "knowingly" committed the violation because he or she signed or clicked-through or unshrinkwrapped an agreement that would have required the services of yet another attorney for proper interpretation and understanding. So, yes ... it's entirely possible that a 21 year old, even a presumably intelligent premed student, would have trouble undestanding the law. I have two lawyers in my family and frankly I don't understand it. Then again, I'm an engineer ... but it bothers me (a lot) that we've allowed the legal profession to turn itself into a de-facto priesthood, able coerce anything and everything from anyone because we are also forced to rely upon them to tell us what our rights actually are.

      Besides, one really has to question whether clicking a button to acknowledge a legal agreement on a Web page (when the remote computer system has no idea whatsoever whether the person supposedly "signing" the online "agreement" is, in fact, the right person, or even a person with the authority to make such an agreement) should be allowed to carry any legal weight. This has demeaned contract law to the point where a college kid can be sued for violating a contract that he never signed in the first place. Granting online agreements the same enforceability as a written contract is dangerous as hell. Besides, if Apple really gave a damn they would have sent all authorized parties a legal contract (on paper!) for each developer to have reviewed by their own attorney, sign and notarize, and return to Apple before being given access to any confidential information. So far as I'm concerned Apple Legal screwed up here in the way they [mis]handled Apple's software assets and some legal heads should roll as well.

      Legality aside, the truth is that requiring someone to physically sign a contract is a much more potent tool to encourage compliance than an "Accept" button on a download site.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    11. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree wholeheartedly. And, and in my experience, any insightful Anti-Apple commentary is very likely to get modded down by all the Apple fanatics. Truly, there is something wrong here that needs to be looked at closely.
      I have very little if any respect for Apple after all the monopolistic arrogant practices they've engaged in just in recent years. As far as I'm concerned, they're no friends of Open Source (oh, I can't wait for some of the whiny replies to that statement) and they'll stab anyone in the back they can get away with who they feel might someday be a potential threat. It is truly unfathomable to me why they garner such a large following of rabid extremists.

    12. Re:Amazing by burns210 · · Score: 1

      "We have a company here that's suing 21 year old mac fans for participating in the illegal sharing of a beta build of their OS."

      He signed an NDA. It IS his fault.

      "We have a company here that's suing a side aimed at their fans because the site spreads some rumors about new products."

      Again. Violation of an NDA. What is apple suppose to do?

      "We have a company that refuses to use an open standard, or even simply to license their technology to other companies, in order to leverage the huge market share they have in one area to boost sales in an other area."

      I admit, it would be nice. But they are using an open standard and putting(their own) security/DRM on top of it. You don't have to use iPods, there are CLEARLY alternatives, and you don't have to use iTunes, nor are you stuck if you are using a mac. There are reasonable, competitive alternatives.

      "We have a company here that is taking open source technology for their new browser, but then refuse to give the changes they make back in a way that might be useful to the original open source developers."

      Blatant lie. Apple has been PRAISED for contributing back to the KHTML project. Beyond which, Webcore is a system-wide rendering engine, any open, closed, free or share-ware developer can use it in the same way Safari uses it.

    13. Re:Amazing by kardar · · Score: 1

      This has definitely changed my opinion of Apple. Not that I am that important or anything, or that I have any ability to make any difference - whether or not I like Apple isn't going to affect their business in one way or the other - but on a personal level, it has changed my opinion of Apple.

      If they are going to waste their time, creating more pain and suffering in an already brutal world instead of focus on making good software, then obviously their products are probably not going to be as good as they could be.

      I want nothing to do with such an uncouth company.

    14. Re:Amazing by m50d · · Score: 1

      Younger people - yes, even as old as 21 - are less good at making decisions about risky things. That's a fact. Some people believe it means they deserve less punishment when they break the law.

      --
      I am trolling
    15. Re:Amazing by nettdata · · Score: 1

      And that is your choice.

      But, let me get this straight... Apple allows people to have special access to their product, albeit with some restrictions and conditions (NDA), and the person has admitted to breaking those conditions.

      What, exactly, do you think Apple should do about it? "Gee, shucks, that's OK, go ahead, even though you're breaking our agreement, we won't mind".

      Man... whatever happened to people TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS? Let's face it, some actions have repercussions, as in this case.

      If some idiot breaking his NDA, and the company taking reasonable and appropriate legal action as a result, is reason enough for you to make a decision about that company, then best of luck to you.

      And, I find it very interesting that you seem to think that suing someone will result in poorer software. These guys aren't SCO... they actually HAVE software developers and engineers on staff... many more than they have lawyers.

      On another note, I find it pretty funny to read all the crap that is flung at so-called "Apple fan Boys". I am one, I guess, because I really like their stuff. Personally, I think people that speak out against them really don't have any experience with them. One of my developers says "they're too stupid to know they're stupid". Maybe there's some truth to that.

      Mind you, it's not an all-or-nothing scenario... it's about using the right tool for the right job.

      I have 3 software companies, and we ALL (except Jake) use OSX as our development platform. We develop Java/Oracle web apps, as well as some stand-alone Java apps, and with the exception of that one person, we all prefer the OSX environment (so he uses Suse). I would not want anything else as a workstation, period, end of subject.

      Mind you, he spends most of our developer meetings trying to get his wireless network access working instead of actually participating in the meetings, as we all just "resume" our PowerBooks and they "just work", but that's another story. :P

      Do we go production on OSX for our web apps? No. We use Solaris or Linux for our production deployments, as they're much more suited to being production servers.

      Is it "proprietary" hardware? Sure, maybe. Are we locked in? Not in the least. At any time we could change our development environment to any other platform we want, in a matter of minutes. (thanks to the joys of CVS, Ant, and some 100% Java tools). We actually do all of our automated builds/testing on Linux.

      That's just us, though, and at the end of the day, I could care less how you view Apple or their products. I just feel a little sad that some people are so blinded and/or short sighted on some subjects.

      --



      $0.02 (CDN)
    16. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have very little if any respect for Apple after all the monopolistic arrogant practices they've engaged in just in recent years.

      And I have no respect for your intelectual capability. Monopolistic arrogant practices can only be practiced by a monopoly. Get the DoJ to sue Apple for illegal monopolistic practices. Go on. I'd love to see their faces when you tell them Apple is a monopoly.

    17. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have just three things to say to you: IPOD, DRM and Intellectual

    18. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are going to waste their time, creating more pain and suffering in an already brutal world instead of focus on making good software, then obviously their products are probably not going to be as good as they could be.


      Ignoring the fact that they can have a team of lawyers that don't hamper their dev team whatsoever...

      Apple is protecting their ability to make good products. Apple works on all sorts of new technologies. Apple then sells the software with said new technologies at extremely reasonable prices. Apple uses these new technologies as a selling point for more computers, which are their primary business.

      If information is leaked to competitors early, said information can be incorporated into a competitor's product. Suddenly Apple doesn't have the Next Big thing, they've got what another company released (but buggier) a month ago, and what still another company will release a polished version of in another month or two.

      If they don't quash these leaks, their products are not going to be as good as they could be, because Apple will not be able to make money from them. It would have changed my view of Apple for the worse if they had done nothing.

    19. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IN short? Yes! Now shut up you shit!

    20. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We ahve multpel pusters thet cannet spull! "Hulla Ronnie, I was just pissing by the deer"

  22. where do you get 30? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    a junior in college pre med who doesn't mind going to school full time from the ages of 4 to 30. That sounds about right including residency et al. That would make the guy about 20-21 years old.

  23. Tiger screenshot leak controversy by britneys+9th+husband · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm wondering -- does this have anything to do with the screenshots of Tiger that were released on Macrumors a few months back? Some of you may remember this; I think Slashdot even ran a story about it (although unfortunately I can't find it at the moment).

    What happened was this: Someone sent what they claimed to be Tiger screenshots to Macrumors.com. However, the article said "courtesy of Gary Niger from GNAA" or some such, so everyone assumed they were fake. But then they turned out to be real. The GNAA has been bragging ever since.

    I guess what I'm really wondering is, are the defendants in this case GNAA members who got caught obtaining and posting these screenshots? Or is this something else, completely unrelated?

    --
    Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
    1. Re:Tiger screenshot leak controversy by ramdac · · Score: 0

      No they aren't members from the GNAA. I know this with absolute certainty.

    2. Re:Tiger screenshot leak controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How?

    3. Re:Tiger screenshot leak controversy by ezthrust · · Score: 1

      Something else completely unrelated. Not to troll, but did you even glance at the article?

    4. Re:Tiger screenshot leak controversy by britneys+9th+husband · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot. I am about as likely to read an article before posting as I am to read an EULA before clicking "I Accept."

      You must be new here :-)

      Oh and trolling doesn't bother me like it bothers some people. Check out my journal and homepage and .sig link if you have any doubts about this.

      --
      Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
    5. Re:Tiger screenshot leak controversy by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Are you GAY?
      Are you a...never mind.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  24. From Merriam Webster by glrotate · · Score: 1

    "steal." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2005. http://www.merriam-webster.com (8 Jan. 2005).

    1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice

    2 : to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly

    3 : to steal or attempt to steal a base

    transitive senses

    1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of

    2 a : to move, convey, or introduce secretly : SMUGGLE b : to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner

    3 a : to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring b of a base runner : to reach (a base) safely solely by running and usually catching the opposing team off guard

    Stealing is when you deprive someone of property

    Sorry. I'm afraid I don't see anything resembling your definition. What the article describes does seem to fit definition 1.

    1. Re:From Merriam Webster by m50d · · Score: 1

      He didn't take it. He copied it.

      --
      I am trolling
    2. Re:From Merriam Webster by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1

      He didn't take it. He copied it.

      He took away Apple's right to decide who gets to use, view, handle, and test their software. That right is legally and morally recognizable property. That is the property he took.

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    3. Re:From Merriam Webster by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Take: to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control: as a : to seize or capture physically

      It seems that this requires something to be in your possesion. Which it clearly is not.

  25. why don't you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The thing is you don't get to decide Apple's strategy for them. Yes, you get to choose which one to pick, so pick one that you agree with. But once you select one, if they tell you not to copy it, you don't get to copy it just because you think Apple would allow it if they were smart.

  26. Theory of ego by tallbill · · Score: 1

    Ya, he has an ego.

    So do you, so do I, so do all of us.

    there are those who think that ego death is a desirable thing. I think that is what is meant by some when they say that they are born again.

    If he is a kid and made a mistake should his punishment be severe and hard-nosed?

    Forgiveness is an important trait. My ego made me say that.

    Try to live without an ego. You will have a hard time living in this world without one. When your ego dies a new one is born.

  27. ADC Security by toonerh · · Score: 5, Informative

    For $500 per year anyone who agrees to follow Apple's ADC NDA agreement has access to 5 "Software Seed Keys". Anyone can join can and obtain an ADC account for free and what are called "assets" can be passed to other ADC account holders in the same company. That way a company can have 5 developers directly downloading prerelease software with only 1 membership.

    There are other, less secretive assets such as the right to buy a Mac system at a discount, albeit for development purposes and not for resale.

    Apple also has much more tightly controlled seeds to key developers, these exist but the procedures and those who are involved are a tightly guarded secret. They used to be only distributed on physical media by private carrier.

    The lawsuit involved the regular seeded software only, not the uber-secret stuff. To my knowledge that has rarely, if ever, made it into the wild.

  28. There is no "civil" fifth amendment privilege. by holt_rpi · · Score: 4, Informative

    The parent here is somewhat correct, but I feel like I should clarify:

    The fifth amendment prohibition against compelled testimony only applies to criminal liability, and only applies to "persons."

    If an elicited response in a civil case might tend to incriminate you in a criminal action, a witness can invoke the privilege against self-incrimination and refuse to answer that question. Remember, though, that if you waive the privilege, it is lost forever - so if you're not sure, SHUT YOUR MOUTH and find a way to consult with a lawyer. If you're at a loss for how to get an attorney, many state and local bar associations have lawyer referral services that are free to the public, usually with a free or cheap 30-minute interview or something.

    In a civil case, just because a statement may tend to make you more liable for money damages in a civil action doesn't mean that you can make a blanket refusal to testify if called as a witness by the opposing party. To do so would not only nullify your defense and force the court to take your opponent's views at face value, but would also mean that individuals could escape liability in most cases by simply refusing to acknowledge it.

    Also important is that civil liability has varying degrees of standards of proof, with ultimate responsibility generally relying on a preponderance of the evidence - both sides have an obligation to plead their cases, and the factfinder decides what "truth" is. Criminal liability, however, requires that the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The criminal defendant can remain silent and the burden for the prosecution remains unchanged.

    However, even in a criminal case, you can't use the defendant's silence as both a sword and a shield; once the defendant has chosen to take the stand and testify, they can't choose to only answer questions that would tend to prove their innocence.

    I know I went a little overboard, but I always see people confusing the fifth amendment privilege and thinking that they can apply it where they can't. Just wanted to clarify.

  29. Rubbish by Sanity · · Score: 0, Troll
    Whose property has been taken?

    Are you claiming that information is property? On what basis do you make that claim?

  30. Re:Why arent we teaching kids that stealing is wro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whence came this sense of entitlement?

    Adults teaching kids to share...

  31. What's Messy?-Jump the Gun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Yeah, he really deserves to be receive more punishment than most rapists do."

    Well since he hasn't received any punishment yet. You're completely off base just so you could do a personal crusade against IP.

  32. My theory: How it all happened, Part Two by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 0


    Part One: My theory: How it all happened.

    Part Two -- Apple lawyers: "Why can't Apple be like the U.S. government? The U.S. government spends half of its discretionary money on "defense", meaning a lot of people die. Why can't we be like Bruce Willis in those movies, where he is always justified in doing damage? We are tired of staying inside writing EULAs. We want to attack someone."

    "But who should we attack? It has to be someone weaker than us, and we are sniveling dorks. Our wives don't even like us."

    If you understand social breakdowns like this, you understand that they never happen unless they are supported by other groups that also want the same thing, for other reasons:

    Angry manager who didn't get a raise: "How do you destroy a social movement as strong as those who love Macs? Attack the biggest enthusiasts, that's how. Attack the biggest enthusiasts in a highly public way. If you can, get the entire story on Slashdot. Hah! I'll sell Apple stock short and make a bundle destroying the company from within."

    Note from me to Apple managers: Please no more of this. I'm running out of creative ways to imagine how you can be so self-destructive.

  33. Here we go again. by glrotate · · Score: 1

    Whose property has been taken?
    Apple's.

    Are you claiming that information is property?
    It can be.

    On what basis do you make that claim?

    "property." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2005. http://www.merriam-webster.com (8 Jan. 2005).

    1 a : a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing b : an effect that an object has on another object or on the senses c : VIRTUE 3 d : an attribute common to all members of a class

    2 a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate b : the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : OWNERSHIP c : something to which a person or business has a legal title d : one (as a performer) under contract whose work is especially valuable

    3 : an article or object used in a play or motion picture except painted scenery and costumes

    1. Re:Here we go again. by Corvass · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you'd want to check legal definitions, and not a dictionary. Intellectual property is not, in fact, property, just something similar to it (because property is by defintion something tangible -- a CD is property, but the information contained on it isn't)

      (Note, IANAL, and this is based on my knowledge of Dutch law, but most of the basic stuff regarding property and IP seems to be pretty much the same in the Western world anyway)

    2. Re:Here we go again. by stewby18 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you'd want to check legal definitions, and not a dictionary.

      Luckily, this is a casual conversation where we are using words to convey general concepts, not a court of law where very fine nuances are extremely important and many words have different meanings. Thus, a dictionary is a perfectly good place to go to see if a word is correctly being used to describe something, in non-legal terms. And that entry demonstrates that according to the defenition of stealing accepted by basically every english-speaking person (for non legal use) is very appropriate here.

    3. Re:Here we go again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah a Dutch! No wonder you don't give a shit about anyone elses IP. You guys don't even have your own, all you do is mooch off of western IP.

    4. Re:Here we go again. by Corvass · · Score: 1

      Hey, look what I found here. A CD. Gee, I wonder who made that. Oh, and there, a music cassette. I wonder who comes up with these things.

      (Hint)

    5. Re:Here we go again. by Corvass · · Score: 1

      And that entry demonstrates that according to the defenition of stealing accepted by basically every english-speaking person (for non legal use) is very appropriate here.

      I'll agree that this is a casual conversation, but I would beg to differ that the legal meaning is not relevant. After all, we're discussing a lawsuit here. Also, I don't really believe there is any consensus regarding the use of the word 'theft' for copyright infringement on Slashdot.

    6. Re:Here we go again. by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1

      Note, IANAL, and this is based on my knowledge of Dutch law

      This lawsuit was brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California at San Jose. Neither the United States Government nor the State of California uses the legal definition of property which is applied in the Netherlands. Furthermore, the law to be applied is called "common law", which is derived from the English legal system. The Dutch use "civil law", which comes from a different origin and which has different ideas, definitions, and traditions.

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    7. Re:Here we go again. by stewby18 · · Score: 1

      I'll agree that this is a casual conversation, but I would beg to differ that the legal meaning is not relevant. After all, we're discussing a lawsuit here.

      The original post that was 'corrected' wasn't acutally discussing the suit though, it was a comment on the behavior and what it says about society.

      Also, I don't really believe there is any consensus regarding the use of the word 'theft' for copyright infringement on Slashdot.

      Sure, but only because there's a high concentration of people on Slashdot who are anal about using a string legal interpretation of the word everywhere, despite that fact that the vast majority in the real world accept the general usage. There's no consensus on much of reality in an institution for the severely disturbed either, but that doesn't make their view of reality valid in my day to day life.

    8. Re:Here we go again. by Corvass · · Score: 1

      True. Anyway, having looked it up on Wikipedia, for as much as that can be considered an accurate source, I'll concede that in the US, IP is indeed classed as property (though it is in some ways more limited than tangible property). Sorry for the confusion.

    9. Re:Here we go again. by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1
      Whose property has been taken? Apple's. Are you claiming that information is property? It can be. On what basis do you make that claim? "property." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2005. http://www.merriam-webster.com (8 Jan. 2005).
      Oh Yeah? Well, in the spirit of Columbus (and the other Europeans') 'discovery' of America, I decided to 'discover Jaguar, Final Cut Pro, and a shitload of other stuff, so Fuck You, pal. Shove the fuckin' dictionary.
  34. Civil != Criminal by holt_rpi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In a criminal case, the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the criminal offense, which may include intent (mens rea), and various components of criminal acts (actus reus). In the U.S., the criminal defendant has a fundamental right to a jury trial (but can choose to waive that right).

    In a civil case, the plaintiff is the master of her claim. If the plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues, it's not like the defendant can waive the jury demand that the plaintiff has made. If all of the facts are agreed by both parties, and the facts as agreed constitute civil liability, the plaintiff will likely move for summary judgment - which basically tells the judge "look - we don't have to go to the jury, because according to these facts, we've satisfied our burden of proving that he did what we said he did, and nothing that the defendant could show would make any difference."

    There is no jury nullification or "nice guy" exception or "oops, I didn't MEAN to do it" way out in strict liability.

    Adding to my earlier post, because he could be liable for criminal copyright violations or possibly other criminal sanctions, he probably does have a fifth amendment privilege with respect to what he's done. He needs to get a competent lawyer.

    1. Re:Civil != Criminal by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

      As for intent, he has already admitted that he willfully and with full consciousness of his actions (or some such thing) made the build available to others. Posting the torrent didn't happen by itself.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
  35. it's interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    i'm a member of the site, and have been for a while. it's interesting that apple didn't try to shut down the site at all. they merely wanted to make sure that tiger betas didn't appear on the site.

    we have all their software well seeded with people downloading, and they didn't give a damn. it was just the prerelease software.

    it seems apple doesn't care too much about piracy and "lost sales"- they just don't want people judging them by prerelease software and getting the wrong impression.

    1. Re:it's interesting... by xgamer04 · · Score: 1

      they just don't want people judging them by prerelease software and getting the wrong impression.

      Either that or they really dislike people breaking their NDAs.

      --
      When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
  36. What's Messy?-"Other" criminal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Killing a guy's future for something like that, malicious intent or not, believable interview or not, NDA or not, is Just Plain Wrong. Save that for real criminals who do real damage, OK?"*

    I got a "real" question for you. Why do people do things that they know is wrong, and then expect not to suffer any punishment for it?

    There are no "real" criminals, because everyone who's caught thinks that it's the other guy that should be the real crimminal. Not them. From people who speed to people who leak national secrets. It's the other guy that should be caught and punished.

    *And in case your memory is fading fast. He hasn't been punished yet. So all this talk about his future is premature.

    1. Re:What's Messy?-"Other" criminal. by m50d · · Score: 1

      Because they don't really think it is wrong. There are real criminals. People who kill people would be a clear example. And the reason we're discussing his future is because we're discussing the story. Speculation is an integral part of that.

      --
      I am trolling
  37. Re:Tigerz by Sophrosyne · · Score: 1

    SO that's why I never get that second date ... damn

  38. Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then ask the khtml developers why so many of the khtml changes for safari haven't been ported into konqueror yet and they will tell you that Apple, while releasing the source, releases it in a way that makes it extremely difficult for the khtml guys to port the changes back to konqueror.

    1. Re:Sigh by Macka · · Score: 1


      Apples use of the code and further development is effectively a fork and has diverged from the original sufficiently enough for it to be hard work to include it into the original.

      The khtml developers could include apples code if they wanted, but they'd have to unpick it, mangle it, etc to make it happen and it turns out that's too much work for them to do.

      So you're saying that apple should be obliged to write their code twice now, once for the original project (khtml) and once for their fork (webcore) and release both at the same time ??

      I call bullshit. If I fork your code to start my own project, I'm not obliged in any way to maintain your code after the fork.

    2. Re:Sigh by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not to mention the fact that when GCC 4 is released with Objective-C++ support (by the way, the Apple developers have been very helpful in modifying their GCC changes so that they can be incorporated into the main trunk) we are likely to see at least one GNUstep web browser based on webkit.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  39. does...not...compute... by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    From the news page of the site in question:

    In light of what has recently taken place, we are going to be making some major changes. We are first going to be migrating to and creating a new forum for all the users. The tracker will keep running but we will make some changes. We will disable the ability to integrate torrent information in the forum. However, we will also enable RSS accessibility. There will be other major changes - possibly even moving to a new tracker system. The system we have now is very functional but I'm certain you all can see some deliquencies which not only reside in our tracker but in just about any other tracker on the Internet. We have been working on most of these changes already but have decided to implement them sooner than anticipated.

    Huuuuh? That's like saying "because it is snowing today, I will not wash my socks, but I will turn up the volume on the stereo". Am I missing something here?

    I also love the general tone of "we're being good guys and complying with the developer's wishes!" What a bunch of shit- these people distribute pirated software, hello!

    1. Re:does...not...compute... by Sophrosyne · · Score: 1

      Bad logic- they don't distribute pirated software no matter how bold you make it. Their users do.

    2. Re:does...not...compute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know what else was taking place. PHP has a serious flaw in serialize() which phpbb uses, our forum database kept getting corrupt b/c mysql, and we're redesigning the graphics. I run a tracker I don't distribute pirated software. we took the torrent down the minute apple asked us to. be happy.

      kthx
      -nessence

    3. Re:does...not...compute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad logic- they don't distribute pirated software no matter how bold you make it. Their users do.

      But they *invited* the users.

      Also, I seriously doubt that one would take the time and energy to run a tracker and *never* download anything from it.

  40. Copyright infringement != Stealing-Athiest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Clearly nobody taught you that copyright infringement isn't stealing. Stealing is when you deprive someone of property, who is deprived of their property with copyright infringement?"

    Clearly you're either an athiest, or an agnostic.

    All established religions already have "Thou shall not steal".

  41. Forbes Article: Biting the hand that feeds them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Here's a link to an article at Forbes that questions the wisdowm of suing your own fans:
    http://forbes.com/home/technology/2005/01/07/cx_ld _0107apple.html

    1. Re:Forbes Article: Biting the hand that feeds them by TheInternet · · Score: 1

      Here's a link to an article at Forbes that questions the wisdowm of suing your own fan

      This is a fairly different issue. The Fobes article is about a web site that publishes private information and sells ads. I'm not sure if they make much of a profit, but not exactly "fans" in the sense of random Mac users walking down the street.

      - Scott

      --
      Scott Stevenson
      Tree House Ideas
  42. Reference Please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  43. What's Messy?-IQ's dropping fast. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "He didn't take what wasn't his, they gave it to him. "

    I swear this forum gets [...use your imagination for what goes here...] each passing year.

    They gave it to him under an agreement* he agreed to. He as much says so.

    *Does anyone here know what an agreement is? Does any here think the way to being trusted in the future is regularly breaking agreements?

    "Here's some national secrets Mr Changa_MC. Sign this agreement not to distribute them to our enemies."

    *later*

    "But, but, you gave them to me. It must have been OK to distribute them."

  44. Mod Parent Up! by gandy909 · · Score: 0

    Too bad the guy posted AC, otherwise his response would probaly be a 5 by now!

    Yet another (set of) reason(s) to not buy Apple products...

    The basic reason Apple gets treated so nice on /. is that as long as their stuff will run Linux, nothing else matters...

    BTW, after working for the court system for 15 years I can definately confirm that ALL lawyers are the lowest form of life on the planet, er, in the universe...no exceptions.

    --

    (Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm
  45. Here you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/khtml-devel/2004-Ju ly/001068.html
    http://dot.kde.org/1097096753/1097 113373/

    1. Re:Here you go by NormalVisual · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The links seem to indicate that Apple is in fact returning changes back to the KDE folks, just not in the format they want. Many of the posts also allude to there not being sufficient resources in the KHTML group to keep up with Apple's changes. Well, that's really not Apple's fault - it looks like Apple is in fact upholding their end of the bargain. If this isn't a correct interpretation, could someone please clarify?

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    2. Re:Here you go by Further82 · · Score: 1

      It seems that they are upholding their end of the bargain in a way not in the spirit of Open Source ideologies. They are releasing their sources without useable patches or documentation merely because they are obliged to by terms of the GPL. They are fulfilling their legal obligations and nothing more.

      The fact is, if Apple had the time, they would have much rather made their own code. They tried to make their own OS core a couple times but failed. And in the mean time MS was gaining ground in terms of OS quality. If Apple had to wait a couple years after the release of XP to release their next operating system, they'd have lost one of their major selling points, that Mac OS's are better and easier to use than Windows. So they bought NeXTSTEP which happened to use open source (but also proven and reliable) code. Since then they've had an obligation to the Open Source community.

      Apple certainly seems to be milking this fact in the PR department, and /. has certainly bought it, but it seems to me Apple is in fact doing as little as they legally can to help the open source community. If they were able to make OS X with their own code, open source would never have crossed their minds.

    3. Re:Here you go by rjrjr · · Score: 1

      If you read the succeeding posts, you'll find the Apple guys being very forthcoming with information on what changed, how, and why patches didn't make much sense.

    4. Re:Here you go by dr.badass · · Score: 1

      They are fulfilling their legal obligations and nothing more.

      If you want people who use your code to "give back to the community" in the way you want, you should license your code in a way that requires them to do so. Add a clause that says "if you're a big company and you take our code, you have to help us out because we're smaller, even if our goals are very different".

      Its entirely in the spirit of the GPL to do as little as you're legally required to do. Thats why it's the GPL and not public domain, or BSD.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    5. Re:Here you go by m50d · · Score: 1

      Yes, the problem is that the changes are "just" not in the format they want. But that is a big problem. It goes against the whole spirit of open source, and possibly the letter as well. ("Preferred form for making modifications" anyone?)

      --
      I am trolling
  46. Well some companies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some companies seem to have Teflon (TM) on them. So bad things get forgotten really quick.

  47. How it should have gone down by hammock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe it would not have turned out differently the following way, but at least you cost them more time and resources doing so:

    Before I found out I was being sued, they(lawyers) called me up to let me know they were doing an investigation. To be perfectly honest, the individuals who contacted me were polite and respectful. When I asked them if they were suing me, they let me know that if I cooperate, that Apple has a history of being a generous company.

    I answered all the questions they asked regarding how I got the torrent, how long I had seeded it for etc. I was honest and as helpful as I possibly could be.


    Wrong. Lawyers are not your friend. Their job is to help prosecute you.

    We were given 'Door #1': "If you don't co-operate we'll sue you". We replied and upon replying received 'Door #2': "We understand it's P2P, but if you don't co-operate we'll sue you" or 'Door #3': "We are all adults here, cooperate and we assure you we won't sue all your users but we can't tell you what might happen to the uploaders".

    How about the front door? You don't have to answer anybody's questions for any reason. In order for you to "co-operate" they need 2 other things:
    1. An officer of the law holding a warrant
    2. Your lawyer present.

    This is a classic case of citizens giving up thier rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Even the Canadian has rights on foreign American soil. These guys just gave up all those rights, did the Apple lawyers and police officers jobs for them, and now they are getting sued!

    1. Re:How it should have gone down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      While I agree that it is always a good idea to have a lawyer at your side in any situation like this, I am picking up an undertone from you that seems to be establishing itself as the common mindset of U.S. citizens: I should not be responsible for my own actions.

      Yes, he has the right to remain silent, and he has the right to an attorney, but he does NOT have to be flamed for freely waiving those rights. He violated the law (a non-frivolous law), admits his wrongdoing, and is ready to accept responsibility. I think a settlement would be the appropriate thing in a situation such as this, but nobody has the right to tell a company they shouldn't protect what is theirs. Unlike Microsoft, Apple has a good product beta that is probably worth every bit of time and money that has been poured into making if functional, reliable, and polished.

      Maybe it was the sweet-talking of the Apple's lawyers. It could have been that he just isn't very bright, but that's doubtful. Or maybe ... just maybe ... it was that he had an ounce of dignity and didn't want to rape our already-abused justice system for his own benefit.

      It's not a lot, but I feel better knowing that a little bit of taxpayer money can be better spent now. A lot of time in the courtroom has just been saved, which will be more well utilized by the next clown trying to claim that a black guy stole her baby at a stop light. Some detectives can examine online bank fraud now instead of tearing through this guy's hard drive looking for traces of a torrent that he could have claimed never existed there.

      If and when sentencing time comes for him, this rare bit of uncowardice will most definitely be remembered by the judge/jury. Thankfully for him, Apple's lawyers do not determine the hard-time/fines/probation that he will receive. But if they could, I'd imagine they'd go lightly on him since, as you said, he did their jobs for them.

      So, I was just about done writing this reply....when I noticed your very first statement which I had missed earlier (I didn't fully RTFP): Maybe it would not have turned out differently the following way, but at least you cost them more time and resources doing so: ARE YOU SERIOUS? That kind of belligerent attitude is surely going to bring you or anybody else bad tidings in the future.

    2. Re:How it should have gone down by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1
      How about the front door? You don't have to answer anybody's questions for any reason. In order for you to "co-operate" they need 2 other things:
      1. An officer of the law holding a warrant
      2. Your lawyer present.

      ... or 3. a civil lawsuit, which is what existed in this case. If he had refused to answer, Apple would have simply demanded, after the suit was filed, that he appeared to testify. If he refused, he could and would have been held in contempt of court, and fined or jailed.

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
  48. Re:I'm an apple fan boy and I say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple does not make money on Ipods. They only make money on Itunes songs.

  49. His story is BS by artemis67 · · Score: 1

    He says he didn't think it illegal to redistribute it?

    Um... hello? Look at the channels you had to go through to get the software! Apple doesn't have a link to it on their home page for everyone to download!

    And he's a frequent reader of Mac rumor sites... come on, those sites are always talking about people being sued for leaking software.

    If his story is true, he needs to get out of college because he's too stupid to be a doctor.

  50. Re:This begs the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given Jobs' love for surprises, organizing the leak seems grossly out of character.

  51. Whatever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have plenty of secret forulas for pot.

  52. Hhhmmmm, Steve Jobs played The Grinch this year? by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Knocking on doors at Christmas Eve? Couldn't they have waited until the holidays were over? Not like the kids were going anywhere.

    Want to stop the Bit Torrent? Take down the tracking URL. That is how many Bit Torrents are shut down.

    Amazing that OSX is based on open sourced software which was meant to be shared, yet has a commercial license preventing it from being shared.

    The horrors, when Pepsi had those MP3 Pirate Kids on their commercials that had free downloads from iTunes. Now Apple is going after almost the same type of kids, only these kids use Macs and share the latest OSX over the Internet.

    Yes Steve Jobs played the role of The Grinch is past year, took away their Christmas. Maybe his heart was two times too small, maybe his head wasn't screwed on just right? ;)

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  53. What's "fucked up"? Your defintion of sharing is! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What an absurd definition people here on slashdot have over the term sharing. Guess it is part of the "it digital, thus it is magical" removes peoples guilt, and makes them think that giving and getting some movie/music/software/game that they have no right to redistribute or get is "sharing."

    Sharing a CD/DVD that I bought and own is sharing, giving out copies of that CD/DVD without the rights to isn't sharing.

    Lending a book that I own is sharing, giving out it in a PDF when I don't have the right to is not sharing.

    Giving out an mp3 of a song I created is sharing, giving out the whole world latest band XYZ album without the right to isn't sharing.

  54. Setting a Precedent for Click-Through Licencing? by the+pickle · · Score: 2, Interesting
    From the interview:

    When I signed up for the free ADC account, I didn't read the agreement. I suppose a lot of us don't read word for word every thing you agree to.

    I never read agreements that I signed when I install other software or when I sign up for things like Hotmail, etc.

    Not that I'm endorsing what he's done, but he's wasting a golden opportunity to turn this into a question of the validity of click-through licencing.

    p
  55. Better luck next time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to be a bit more subtle to get your point of slashdot hypocrisy addressed(spare me the MS it is ok to scream about because they are evil, but apple does it isn't essays) and not get modded to hell.

  56. Re:Why arent we teaching kids that stealing is wro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and obtain stuff they do not have the right to.

    Again, sharing the original CD/DVD you own is sharing, giving out copies of that CD/DVD without permission to do so is not.

  57. They're not in the same market by toby · · Score: 1

    So market share comparisons are dubious at best.

    --
    you had me at #!
  58. Borrowing Cars != Stealing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, I only borrow your car for a joyride, then I leave it somewhere. That's not stealing because you'll get it back. Besides, I needed it to impress a hot date.

    Copyright infringement != Stealing. Yeah, right.

  59. Bzzt by glrotate · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Fifth Amendment 'can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory; and it protects against any disclosures which the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used.' Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441, 44-45 ('72).

    A reasonable belief that information concerning income or assets might be used to establish criminal failure to file a tax return can support a claim of Fifth Amendment privilege. See U.S. v. Rendahl, 746 F.2d 553, 55-56 (9th Cir.'84).

    1. Re:Bzzt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know whether or not you are disagreeing with what the grandparent wrote - but you've effectively said the same thing, no ?

      "If an elicited response in a civil case might tend to incriminate you in a criminal action, a witness can invoke the privilege against self-incrimination and refuse to answer that questio" [grandparent]

      "protects against any disclosures which the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution" [parent]

    2. Re:Bzzt by holt_rpi · · Score: 1

      You can assert the fifth amendment in any tribunal you like if there's a reasonable likelihood that such testimony, if elicited, could result in a response that tends to incriminate you for a criminal offense.

      Answering a question that only happens to prove that you have civil liability for some event (absent a criminal component to the same set of facts) does not grant you any privilege alone.

      For example: if you're criminally accused of murder and the family of the decedent files a wrongful death suit against you - in the suit by the family to prove your civil liability, you can assert the privilege against any questions that might tend to show that you are criminally responsible for any offenses. However, you probably can't refuse to testify altogether unless you can prove to a judge that any testimony would be so prejudicial to your CIVIL case (because you'd be invoking the privilege all the time) that it would be unfair to even put you on the stand.

      More likely than not, however, any of these issues would be dealt with during pretrial motion practice to narrow the scope of the defendant's testimony. They would probably wait to sue until after the criminal trial anyway, after which jeopardy will have attached, making an argument to invoke the fifth amendment privilege more difficult (but not moot or impossible by any means).
      An example for the converse would be if you were driving along and purely accidentally hit a nun crossing the street. The nun could sue you for negligence, but unless you may have also committed some criminal offense, you could be compelled to give testimony that might be against your interest (note that self interest is NOT the same as criminal culpability).

  60. Pre-med without a clue by Seoulstriker · · Score: 1

    Neither is a particularly good quality to see in someone that wants to be a doctor.

    Not only is he ignorant of how laws work in the US with respect to copyright and theft, his motivations to study medicine are also suspect:

    Anyway, I'm a junior in college - and despite popular belief I'm not a programming major or computer science aficionado; I'm just a plain ol' pre-med student. My passion lies in medicine. I'm one of those hippy-save-the-world Canuks. I suppose that's due to committing myself to life as a perpetual student - but I have no problem with that. Non-stop school between the age of 4 and 30 isn't so bad, when you get to feel like you're making a difference in peoples lives.

    He is planning on entering a career in medicine because of his good intentions to "save the world". I think his idea is that the only thing that matters is whether you have the right intentions. His intention to "save the world" by being a physician is about as admirable as his intention to satiate the want of his friends for X.4 Tiger.

    If he is as idiotic as he describes himself with his "good intentions", I can't wait to see his MCAT scores from this April... if he's not in jail at that time.

    --
    I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
    1. Re:Pre-med without a clue by m50d · · Score: 1

      Wtf? You think that wanting to save people's lives is a bad reason to go into medicine? What should he have done. Good intentions are a good thing, and if that's honestly the way he feels, the world needs more people like him.

      --
      I am trolling
    2. Re:Pre-med without a clue by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Good intentions are certainly a good thing, but as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with them.

      This kid might have good intentions, but he seems to be sadly lacking in the "good judgement" department, and a doctor needs good judgement a hell of a lot more than good intentions, IMHO.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    3. Re:Pre-med without a clue by Seoulstriker · · Score: 1

      You need more than wanting to "save the world" to be a physician. I've seen pre-meds, med students, and residents with his attitude. They are some of the most miserable people I knew. When they come to the arduous workload and studyload while still working 80 hours a week, they don't know what to do. The wistful attitude that they are going to "save the world" is what do them in.

      Why doesn't he go into nursing instead? He can have more patient contact, do more physically for the patient. Why is he studying in the US instead? Does he know about the horrible environment for physicians in Canada? Does he know what kind of terrible money he's gonna get for working in Canada? Dollars to donuts, he knows. He should just stay in Canada and "save the world" there. Oh wait, he can't make the big-bucks while there because of the socialized medicine. So instead, he's getting sued and might go to jail.

      --
      I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
  61. RE: spoken with true lawyer weasel words! by King_TJ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You know what? Just because you have a *right* to remain silent doesn't mean you should always do so!

    Perhaps there is sometimes far greater value in getting things "off your chest" and publicly clarifying a situation before the rumor-mongers go wild, twisting it into something completely different than it is?

    When you're just a student with limited finances and limited personal property, you already *know* there's not too much financial damage a corporation can do to you. (Can't get blood from a turnip, as they say.) So where's the only *true* damage coming from in a case like this? Usually, your personal credibility and respect - if you remain silent and let people run around the Internet tossing out wild accusations about you.

    In fact, letting the public know the true nature of this type of situation can prove to be your best "counter-measure" against the corporation. Any sympathy you earn may do you no good in the courtroom directly, but it very well MIGHT influence the future purchasing desicions others make. (EG. If you used to support Apple products because of a belief they were a more "moral" company than competitors like Microsoft, maybe now, you'll change your mind?)

  62. There's no requirment to port by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you take code and port it to another platform, then you add to that code, you are not required to port the changes back.

    You are required to make the new code available to anyone who wants it. If they want to port it back, they can.

    If Apple were required to port it back to every platfcrm that KHTML runs on, they'd have to port it to gameboys and dreamcasts and OQOs and....

    You use open source code, you're required to make your code available. That's all you have to give back.

    1. Re:There's no requirment to port by jaoswald · · Score: 1

      As far as the LGPL goes, you are only required to make the source code available to whomever you distribute the software.

      Not "anyone who wants it."

  63. Pictures leaked by akuzi · · Score: 1

    Gizmodo is now linking to (possibly fake) leaked pictures of the headless iMac.

    1. Re:Pictures leaked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it faked?

      Hint: in the US of A, it's spelled "center."

  64. Re:Hhhmmmm, Steve Jobs played The Grinch this year by goMac2500 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Apple shares the source for their open source derivatives, and even ported them to x86.

  65. Dumbass- Seeds aren't meant to be "played with" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy is a pre-med student, but he 1. joins a developer program fraudulently 2. uses a shadily-obtained seed key to download non-public, pre-release software intended for testing 3. doesn't bother testing (or even installing) this software 4. immediately and deliberately shares the software. He doesn't read any of the licenses or NDAs he agreed to along the way. DUH!

    This guy is a dumbass. He's headed for major troubles if he continues in medicine (!!!) Failure to pay attention as a doctor will get patients killed, privacy compromised, money wasted, etc. I hope he gets his ass kicked. HELLO!!!

  66. Re: spoken with true lawyer weasel words! by spywarearcata.com · · Score: 1

    And that is exactly why you should remain silent until you have consulted with counsel and balanced all the factors such as "getting things off your chest," personal credibility, countering wild accusations and so forth with the far greater likilihood that you are simply making yourself a obvious and easier-hit target by the plaintiff.

  67. Re:Hhhmmmm, Steve Jobs played The Grinch this year by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    Just not the OSX dirivitives, right? Just that weak Unix OS named Darwin that hardly anyone uses because BSD Unix and Linux have more features available for it? I tried Darwin, and it wouldn't even install on my state of the art X86 system, or even the older 700Mhz Celeron system I had. Red Hat, Fedora, Knoppix, etc worked better on those systems.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  68. Re:Hhhmmmm, Steve Jobs played The Grinch this year by dr.badass · · Score: 1

    Knocking on doors at Christmas Eve? Couldn't they have waited until the holidays were over? Not like the kids were going anywhere.

    They came to serve the papers on Dec. 25, Christmas Day. He wasn't there.

    Now Apple is going after almost the same type of kids, only these kids use Macs and share the latest OSX over the Internet.

    Except that to get the software they had to agree that they wouldn't share it.

    Amazing that OSX is based on open sourced software which was meant to be shared, yet has a commercial license preventing it from being shared.

    This is only amazing because you don't understand how the BSD license works.

    --
    Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
  69. Re:Hhhmmmm, Steve Jobs played The Grinch this year by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1
    Amazing that OSX is based on open sourced software which was meant to be shared, yet has a commercial license preventing it from being shared.

    Parts of OS X are based on open-sourced software, and either those parts are made available or, at least, the open-sourced components are made available for sharing.

    Other parts aren't based on open-sourced software, and those parts aren't made available for sharing.

  70. The channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That he asked in is the official channel of MTKA #MacTorrents at irc.torrentskickass.com

  71. Re:What's "fucked up"? Your defintion of sharing i by m50d · · Score: 1

    Why isn't giving out a copy of it sharing? When I write a poem, giving out multiple pdfs of it is sharing. And I'd consider it to be sharing if other people gave each other copies of it too. It's sharing, plain and simple, the problem is selfish people who want to make money from the rarity of their stuff don't want you sharing it.

    --
    I am trolling
  72. The case is about breach of contract. by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 1

    When downloading a pre-release from Apple Developer Connection, you sign a contract saying you won't re-distribute the item. This fellow did.

  73. Why no uprorar like when the RIAA sues someone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah, it's Apple

  74. Refusing open standard? by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 1

    We have a company that refuses to use an open standard, or even simply to license their technology to other companies, in order to leverage the huge market share they have in one area to boost sales in an other area.

    OSX, at it's core, is quite standards compliant (after all, it's a flavour of UNIX running some very common OSS), so I know you're not complaining about that.

    Your comment is probably about iTunes/iPod/ITMS. Let me explain this carefully: APPLE IS A HARDWARE COMPANY. They are not in the business of designing free music players just to take a bath on the development cost. Every software product, every service that Apple offers, is designed to sell more Apple hardware.

    And honestly, who starts a giant torrent tracker full of pirate software and doesn't expect legal hassles from it?

  75. Re:Setting a Precedent for Click-Through Licencing by kitzilla · · Score: 1

    > I never read agreements that I signed when I install other software or when I sign up for things like Hotmail, etc. And I close my eyes when I blow through red lights and stop signs.

    --
    This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
  76. 'Intellectual Property' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When do we stop considering a sequence of bits possession?

  77. Re:Why arent we teaching kids that stealing is wro by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
    Whence came this sense of entitlement?

    Napster.

  78. Re: spoken with true lawyer weasel words! by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1
    When you're just a student with limited finances and limited personal property, you already *know* there's not too much financial damage a corporation can do to you. (Can't get blood from a turnip, as they say.) So where's the only *true* damage coming from in a case like this? Usually, your personal credibility and respect - if you remain silent and let people run around the Internet tossing out wild accusations about you.

    A corporation can still obtain a judgment against you which would drive you into bankruptcy. That would ruin your credit and make it very difficult for you to obtain things like a house later in life. (And, no, student loans aren't wiped out in bankruptcy. You're still stuck with them.) If they obtain the judgment and you don't file for bankruptcy, they can keep suing you whenever they think you might have some money, i.e. after graduation, to collect on it. In addition, having a bankruptcy, or a large judgment against you, can screw up background checks if you later want certain kinds of government or corporate jobs. (Banks and financial service companies will run background checks for any kind of position of trust. If they find "XYZ Corp. sued and won $1.1M from applicant, applicant filed for bankruptcy to avoid paying", they won't hire you. For that matter, you now have to undergo a background check if you want to become a lawyer.)

    In addition, the company can gather evidence to press charges against you for criminal copyright violation.

    But, hey, if you're just a student, and you were stupid enough to get involved in something like this, you're stupid enough to think that you don't need professional legal assistance in getting out of it. Trying to do the mature and respectable thing is just "lawyer weasel words".

    --
    All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
  79. Re:Why arent we teaching kids that stealing is wro by Herr_Nightingale · · Score: 1

    Stealing is wrong. However, this topic has nothing to do with theft.

  80. So it was Apple who took down suprnova by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, and if this guy ain't sent to jail and actually graduates as a Doctor (unlikely as that seems), I don't want him sticking a finger up MY ass...

  81. speech dis-recognition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Opening line of the interview:
    I'll try without sounding too, pompous. I'm a Canadian living in the good ol' American south. Allot of friends back home...
    So is the author of the article an awful typist or was this transcribed through voice recognition software?
  82. What's "fucked up"? [MY] defintion of sharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop being selfish and share your financial and personal information with the rest of us.*

    *Of course you're going to be a hypocrite, and demand that others share, but you're not going to.

    1. Re:What's "fucked up"? [MY] defintion of sharing by m50d · · Score: 1

      Personal information is different and you know it is. If you don't, try reading RMS's 3 types of information. But you're welcome to anything creative or useful I've made. Want the essays I wrote for GCSE English, or the little rot47 encoder/decoder I wrote, or my arrangement of Pacabel's cannon? Just ask.

      --
      I am trolling
  83. Re: spoken with true lawyer weasel words! by King_TJ · · Score: 0

    Just finishing up with an extremely messy/difficult divorce myself, I fully understand the problems "bad credit" can bring - and the unfortunately necessity of "professional legal assistance" in some cases.

    Still, I find you speaking out of the mouth of an attorney with your arguments here.

    1. This guy already made it abundantly clear that he aspires to go into the *medical profession*. The fact that a bankruptcy might prevent him from passing background checks for government or financial jobs is probably not too high on his list of concerns. Moreover, I suspect our nation is at its peak of "background checking" right now. Before much longer, the pendulum almost has to swing back the opposite direction - because too many excellent job candidates are being denied jobs based on "credit history". (If you have poor credit and you're trying hard to get a good job, what does that tell you? It tells me you're an individual trying to do the right thing, and get back on his/her feet again! You can't very well expect someone to fix previous credit problems while remaining unemployed!)

    2. Given the facts presented, Apple's desire to press criminal copyright infringement charges against this guy for distributing a developer *beta* of their product should be slim to none. Yeah, it COULD happen - but talk about backlash! Heck, I personally own 3 newer Mac systems and I'd dump them all in a heartbeat if I saw Apple do that to this guy! As I said before, consider the "intent of the law" as well as just the "letter of the law". The REAL reason for an NDA on this stuff in the first place is to avoid bad press about bugs that are still in the process of being fixed, and to prevent headaches of the general public running the OS well before it's ready for "prime time" and requesting support for it.

    A Mac fanatic passing a Tiger build to "5 or 6" other Mac fanatics is hardly worthy of a criminal charge. If someone, in turn, made the torrent file publically available and thousands downloaded it - so what? That's completely out of this guy's control. He's not the one who did that!

  84. Re:I'm an apple fan boy and I say by tgibbs · · Score: 1

    Apple does not make money on Ipods. They only make money on Itunes songs.

    No, actually it is the other way around.

  85. Re: spoken with true lawyer weasel words! by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1

    This guy already made it abundantly clear that he aspires to go into the *medical profession*. The fact that a bankruptcy might prevent him from passing background checks for government or financial jobs is probably not too high on his list of concerns.

    Okay, how about background checks for the medical profession? A background check for getting an auto loan will be "what is your credit score". A background check for getting a job at a hospital will be something more like this:

    "Before we put you in a position of trust, caring for the physical well-being of patients and handling their confidential medical records, we would like to know: Have you ever been sued for any reason? Have you ever been sued for divulging confidential information or misappropriating intellectual property?" And he's now in a position where he has to hope that nobody cares.

    Yeah, it COULD happen - but talk about backlash! Heck, I personally own 3 newer Mac systems and I'd dump them all in a heartbeat if I saw Apple do that to this guy!

    That's nice. However, Slashdot or technology trade press readers (especially those who believe that Apple shouldn't protect its intellectual property) represent a relatively small proportion of Apple customers.

    --
    All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
  86. a pre-med student. . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Very interesting the leak is from 30-year-old pre-med student who doesn't understand confidentiality.

    Wish his future patients well. It's not like there's any damage from letting loose a few bits of confidential patient history, right?

  87. Aw... Poor Apple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean that Apple isn't the happy fuzzy user-friendly bunny that everyone has been making them out as? iLife, iPhoto, iLawsuit, iSueyouforeverypennyyouhave...

    Well, we'll see what happens. Apple could get a lot of negative PR from this. People could very well start hating Apple as much as Microsoft if they start going after "one of their own".

    Shrug. Big companies are all the same. Anyone who "thinks different" is a fool.

  88. Apple is pretty incredible isn't it? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It makes awesome products (Dual G5, iPods, iLife, PowerBooks), some smart licensing movies (HP iPod, HP Tunes, Motorola iPhone), has a good open source policy (Darwin, KHTML, ZeroConf, Darwin Streaming Server) and STILL people bitch when Apple acts to defend itself!

    Let me refute your inaccurate points:

    >We have a company here that's suing 21 year old mac fans for participating in the illegal sharing of a beta build of their OS.

    No, we have a company here that's suing a 21 year old and others for violating a contractual agreement.

    Would YOU not sue me if you paid me $2,000 to paint your car and then when you left the car overnight I sold it to someone else? There are two things that are of interest here:

    Apple has an NDA, like many other companies. Intel has them, AMD has them, ATI has them. If you violate that license, you break your contractual agreement.

    Apple, like any other technical company, can suffer harm from leaked technical information getting into the hands of competitors. In other words if a rival company ALSO downloads one of those builds they've got their hands on the 'crown jewels' so to speak.

    >We have a company here that's extracting information from someone they are about to sue under false pretence.

    We have a company here that's suing to ensure future leaks are minimized. Why do you think this is false pretenses? Their OS is almost as much their bread and butter as their desktops! You can't run any Mac without the OS.

    If this were a case where someone stole 5 prototype future PowerBooks, Apple would SURELY prosecute the perpetrator for exactly the same reasons.

    >We have a company here that's suing a side aimed at their fans because the site spreads some rumors about new products.

    Leaks can hurt you. Osbourne computer found out the hard way when they announced a product too early in the life cycle of the current product and went bankrupt because people were waiting for the next version!

    Other ways leaks can hurt you: A competitor can copy you, or clone a good enough solution to nullify any special advantages your product has.

    >We have a company that refuses to use an open standard, or even simply to license their technology to other companies, in order to leverage the huge market share they have in one area to boost sales in an other area.

    You mean like how HP has their HP iPod (which has a tiny HP logo on the back)?
    How HP ALSO has Fairplay decoding built into their version of the HP Media Center PC (under the technology HP Tunes) so that songs purchased from the iTMS can be played back OUTSIDE of iTunes?
    How Motorola will have a phone that plays Fairplay encoded AACs that can be purchased through the iTMS?

    Are you advocating that Apple should be licensing indiscriminately? Because it sure seems to be that Apple IS licensing, but just not licensing to companies you care about, perhaps.

    Like to Real software.

    >We have a company that is heavily promoting software patents and is heavily involved in fileing trivial software patents.

    I must have missed this. Point out some examples please?

    >We have a company here that is taking open source technology for their new browser, but then refuse to give the changes they make back in a way that might be useful to the original open source developers.

    Someone else already made a rebuttal, but I want to know what you think the "solution" is because I certainly don't see the "problem". Maybe you know something I don't?

    >And yet it seems, Apple is still loved by the /. crowd, that would tear any other company apart if it engaged in anything similar.

    As I said earlier, Apple makes great products, makes great software, and in turn allows you, in using those products and software, to enjoy yourself.

    About the only other company I can think of that has similar characteristics are:
    Coke
    Hershey's
    Nintendo

  89. Unsympathetic by xihr · · Score: 2

    It's hard to be sympathetic for this guy. He signed an NDA, didn't read it, then did something incredibly stupid, and is getting sued for it. He even admits it -- but seems to think it's unfair that he should have to face the consequences of his actions. Why should we care, exactly?

    This isn't Big Brother, this isn't Evil Corporate America, this is someone explicitly and knowingly entering into a contract and then flagrantly violating it. That he didn't read the NDA, or apply the tinyiest inkling of common sense, makes that his fault, and no one elses.

    What does he think the appropriate resolution should be, exactly? Getting a cookie?

  90. Re:Setting a Precedent for Click-Through Licencing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In spyware cases, in which the license has stuff you wouldn't expect in it: yeah, good point, click through licenses are bullshit.

    In this case, where he was endorsing an NDA-- uh, duh!

    Is there anyone who isn't aware that beta versions of commercial OSes are under Non-Disclosure Agreement rules? And if there are, why are they applying to medical school!?

    OK, yes, the kid did something that any of us might do in his circumstances-- he got cool beta software and shared it. But, there's no way he can pretend he didn't know that what he was doing was legally wrong.

  91. Threatening legal action is against the law by verus+vorago · · Score: 1

    This would not just get thrown out in Australia but the lawyer that threatened legal action could be disbarred ("struck off the roll").

    Here, it is against the law to threaten someone with being sued. The law is not a tool/weapon to be used by those in the know or with the money to pay them.

    IANAL (but I know one who nearly got into trouble for this)

  92. Re:Hhhmmmm, Steve Jobs played The Grinch this year by goMac2500 · · Score: 1

    Darwin is not a weak UNIX OS. Darwin can do anything that OS X can do. It includes the Foundation and Core Foundation languages that OS X uses which provide a lot of functionality. The only thing Darwin is really missing is the GUI and the bundled applications. Install Darwin, then X11, then GNUStep, and you have a very nice Mac OS X clone. No, you're not going to get OS X's closed source window manager, but saying Darwin is a weak UNIX OS is just arrogant. As long as it doesn't involve a Aqua GUI, Darwin can do anything OS X can do. The reason Cocoa doesn't work is because its mostly a language for building a GUI. All of Cocoa's non-GUI classes are simply abstractions on Foundation and Core Foundation, which as I said, are included with Darwin. Your problems were probably due to Darwin's weak drivers on the x86 side. After all, Darwin is mainly a PowerPC OS. I'm really surprised someone hasn't ported some drivers, and added a X11 window manager and GNUStep to a Darwin distribution for x86. It would create a OS able to decently run most OS X software.

  93. Re:This begs the question by Quobobo · · Score: 1

    This would make no sense, because Apple has absolutely no need to leak it. A lot of ADC members recieve the Tiger builds, and the Mac.TKA community is pretty big. It would be leaked by someone no matter what Apple wants.

  94. this siuc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck apple! fuck fucking fuckers! FUCK!

  95. Ethics by Refrag · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know about you guys, but I'm not very sympathetic to a pre-med student without any ethics. It makes you wonder what kind of physician he'll become.

    --
    I have a website. It's about Macs.
  96. Collage Naivete by songbo · · Score: 1

    I see here a naive kid who just did something to satisfy his ego. Maybe just being eager to share the good stuff, because he loved the company. Well, turns out that he violated some NDA which he didn't read. And the company decides that it has to make a point. Moral of the story? Read the NDA, know what you can and cannot do. The company will not be lenient, because it's protecting its own interest. On the other hand, maybe it doesn't have to terrify the kids so much. They're just some poor kids anyway. A warning would do just fine, and they will probably remain loyal customers. Do they really need to resort to suing the guys? I think not.

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world - those that know binary, and those that don't.
  97. Re:Why arent we teaching kids that stealing is wro by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

    Why arent we teaching kids that stealing is wrong?

    Or perhaps we should rephrase that...

    Why are we teaching kids that sharing is good?

  98. We'll Just See... by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...how Apple plays this one.

    Was the kid a bit naive? Sure. I'm occasionally on invitation-only torrents in the Mac, and multi-platform, scenes, and the trackers are adamant about people NOT distributing the torrent files, themselves, on other trackers. Always lots of warnings regarding "Don't share torrents, outside." So, I give the kid the benefit of the doubt regarding his belief that the buggy beta would stay 'inside' somewhat. He made, as Nixon put it, 'an error in judgment', no question of that.

    I also believe that the real asshole in this situation was the 'paid-up' ADC Member who had the 'seed' of Tiger, in the first place, and 'gave' it to the kid with the freebie ADC account. (Trust me, the 'free' ADC accounts never see 'seeds' of an OS. Period.) He's the one who should be taken to the cleaners, not the kids.

    Apple Computer is also made up of 'smart' people, with history and experience. And they should know, (as well as most of us here) that 'good' people do 'bad' things, and smart people are capable of doing the stupidest things.

    I did some freelance work in the Securities industry (as an investment analyst for a small group of fellows), and one of the truisms in Markets and market interventions is this: The mechanisms put in place after a crisis, stock crash, etc, are never sufficient to prevent the next shock, and what is more, the mechanisms, themselves, almost invariably guarantee that the next 'event' will be far worse than the one that precipitated the intervention, and its so-called 'protection'. We'll just see... the ball is in Apple's court... for the time being.

  99. Re:We'll Just See... P.S. by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

    Apple's made their share of mistakes. With their great tech, and loyal base of users, and the over-emphasized 'design' thing, they've pulled some World Class Boners, themselves. They aren't 'kids', stupid, naive, or otherwise. And I'll bet that more than a few people will be watching to see what they really want to do to these kids' lives.

    In the meantime, they should be aware that there are a lot more of 'us' out here, than there are them and their lawyers out in Cupertino. And if they decide to fuck around here, (when they should be focused on porting the Finder in Cocoa instead of fucking Carbon, etc.)... well, all I can say is: If anyone's interested in Final Cut Pro, Logic 7, Motion, DVD SP, or any OS from 6 to 9, to OSX to "name it and claim it", don't buy it until after this situation plays out.

  100. Just remember. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the original authors (or, in your terminology, "evil corporations") weren't compensated enough for the original work (say Adobe Photoshop or the latest episode of "Reality Crap"), then they wouldn't continue making them, and then they wouldn't be there to share in the first place.

    So, simply don't share their stuff and don't consume it, then they'll go away. No more "evil corporations".

    1. Re:Just remember. by m50d · · Score: 1

      Wtf? If I share it, it probably doesn't benefit them. It's unlikely to harm them, but I don't think it benefits them very much. I share everything I can legally and some things I can't.

      --
      I am trolling
  101. Re:Hhhmmmm, Steve Jobs played The Grinch this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And, as pointed out elsewhere, what of OS X is based on open-source software tends to be based on the BSD license. It isn't "meant" to be shared, it can be shared but isn't arrogant enough to try to force you to.

  102. Re:Setting a Precedent for Click-Through Licencing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That wouldn't be a click-through challenge, it would question the validity of any contract. There's no more excuse that you didn't read it when you click through than when you affix a physical signature.

  103. Get over it. by thenewguy10 · · Score: 1

    All the people that are bashing. im sure all of you are perfect and have never shared a program or mp3. get over it. wait no don't because all of you are so elite and much better then everyone else. please. He didn't do it to ruin the mac commnity and he didn't do it to be some jerk. He's not as vein as the people on here that think they can be his judge.

  104. Re:Hhhmmmm, Steve Jobs played The Grinch this year by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    Except one would have to have the source code to recompile and hope there are no PPC tweaks that need to be rewritten to port on the X86 Darwin platform.

    So Photoshop is out of the question, as the source code is not given away, and Adobe does not have an interest in compiling it for an X86 Darwin release.

    So GNUStep runs OSX programs? I did not know that, did Apple release all of the undocumented API calls to that project to run OSX code on any Unix that uses GNUStep?

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  105. Re:Hhhmmmm, Steve Jobs played The Grinch this year by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    Amazing, in asking people not to share open sourced projects under the BSD license, apparently, Apple does not understand the BSD license either. ;)

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  106. Re:Hhhmmmm, Steve Jobs played The Grinch this year by goMac2500 · · Score: 1

    Apple doesn't use undocumented calls. Cocoa is based on the OpenStep standard, and the Objective C compiler is the standard GCC one. GnuStep is an implementation of Cocoa using OpenStep on non-Mac OS X systems. It's like WineLib, except more compatible because its based on the exact same foundation. Last I checked GnuStep had all the necessary classes in place for me to port over my Cocoa game engine without recoding. The only parts that aren't open are Carbon (which is a OS X implementation of the OS 9 API, which you shouldn't be coding in anyway, but Office and Photoshop are written in it because it's easy to port from 9 with it), and Apple's private frameworks (Cocoa is not part of it, usually these are frameworks like keyboard backlight control and such, nothing very important for programming). And, you do realize, any private calls us programmers ourselves can't call, meaning we're not using them, meaning they aren't a problem for porting to GnuStep.

  107. Re:Hhhmmmm, Steve Jobs played The Grinch this year by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    I checked the OSX license agreement, and it doesn't seem to be worded the same way a BSD license is worded. It does say certain parts of it are Open Sourced. So this is not an actual BSD license, but it tends to pretend that it covers the whole OS, even the Open Sourced parts, of which it claims are not transferable without the original media, etc. Some Open Sourced parts have a GPL license, apparently.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  108. Re:Hhhmmmm, Steve Jobs played The Grinch this year by dr.badass · · Score: 1

    I checked the OSX license agreement, and it doesn't seem to be worded the same way a BSD license is worded.

    Why would it be? Nobody has claimed that Mac OS X is BSD-licensed.

    So this is not an actual BSD license, but it tends to pretend that it covers the whole OS, even the Open Sourced parts, of which it claims are not transferable without the original media, etc.

    Yes, the BSD license allows this.

    Some Open Sourced parts have a GPL license, apparently.

    Yes, and source is available. I couldn't tell you where, exactly, as I've never had the need to recompile (say) GCC from scratch, but I assure you it's available.

    --
    Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
  109. Re:Hhhmmmm, Steve Jobs played The Grinch this year by dr.badass · · Score: 1

    Amazing, in asking people not to share open sourced projects under the BSD license, apparently, Apple does not understand the BSD license either.

    Again, you're amazed simply because you assume that BSD is effectively the same as the GPL. It isn't. BSD allows anyone to take the code, modify it, and sell it, without giving anything back.

    --
    Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
  110. Re:Hhhmmmm, Steve Jobs played The Grinch this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GnuStep is an implementation of Cocoa using OpenStep on non-Mac OS X systems.

    I'd just like to state that GNUStep is very, very, incomplete. Claiming that "most" Mac OS X software would run on it isn't at all accurate. Yes, there are things that can be ported easily, but GNUStep is in no way a Mac OS X clone.

    --anonymous GNUStep hacker