Apple Agrees to Hold Off on Subpoenas

ido writes "Apple has agreed to hold off on serving subpoenas related to their John Doe civil suits against some free press journalists to reveal sources releasing Apple's "trade secrets." This is related to a previous article." The original story has some more background info as well. While Apple is notorious for its secrecy before MacWorlds, Apple probably figured out that dragging people into court usually does little for one's popularity.

Comments

Enough

[fembots]

Has Apple received extra PR attention? Yes.

Has Apple made it clear that it can and will do what it takes to suppress any leaks? Yes.

Apple is a profitable company, it doesn't need lawsuits to stay in business, cetainly not chasing its own tail or shooting in the dark lawsuits.

Re:Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has successfully use subpoenas in the past. However, if they lost this case, they would have no ability to legally threaten people in the future.

Basically, they're withdrawing now to maintain the power to get stuff pulled from rumor sites when the ACLU and EFF aren't looking.

Re:Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

They're withdrawing now because they have milked this for all the publicity they can get out of it and because they don't want the leak to be found.

They now look like the innocent high-tech company producing advanced products, spied upon by an industry that supposedly awaits every move Apple makes breathlessly. And the Mini looks like an advanced, hot piece of technology because, well, who would bother to spy on a dud?

Come on, do you really believe this whole thing wasn't scripted by Apple from beginning to end?

Re:Enough

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Has Apple received extra PR attention? Yes.
Yes, So much so to show that they are willing to use dirty tactics to supress the first amendment. The target should of been the leak, not the one posting the information.
Has Apple made it clear that it can and will do what it takes to suppress any leaks? Yes.
Actully, no. There are many other ways to identify leaks - the best being drop multiple hooks to people that are suspected, and watch for the fake hook to be posted. Apple chose to misuse the civil laws for it's own bludgeon instead - Stamping on free speech.
Apple is a profitable company, it doesn't need lawsuits to stay in business, cetainly not chasing its own tail or shooting in the dark lawsuits.

then they should of thought of that before doing something as assinine as this lawsuit. It was all Jobs's anger at a percieved "Loss of Thunder" which using the benefit of 20/20 hindsight was the equivalent of a mountain out of a molehill. //sets timer for the usual flamebait/troll mods for daring to speak against apple.

I think three seconds should be sufficient.

Re:Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so you observe that Apple really only benefitted from this whole thing. So, you forgot:

Did Apple plan and set up the whole thing? Probably yes.

Re:Enough

[v1]

Has Apple received extra PR attention? Yes.
Yes, So much so to show that they are willing to use dirty tactics to supress the first amendment. The target should of been the leak, not the one posting the information.

They are trying to target the leak, but to do that they have to find out who it is. The logical person to ask is the reporter. Apple's secrecy about their new products is a well-known fact, and any reporter that has a "confidential source" approach them with details about Apple's next as-yet-unreleased product knows they are receiving trade-secrets and that this is illegal. The reporter's only possible defense is to claim that they didn't realize they were receiving trade-secret information, and considering that's effectively the purpose of those rumor sites, it's a bit like suprnova claiming they don't knowingly host illegal torrents. "Yeah, right, whatever."

Has Apple made it clear that it can and will do what it takes to suppress any leaks? Yes.
Actully, no. There are many other ways to identify leaks - the best being drop multiple hooks to people that are suspected, and watch for the fake hook to be posted. Apple chose to misuse the civil laws for it's own bludgeon instead - Stamping on free speech.

Apple is admittedly going after the easiest target. It's also the most effective target. I wouldn't be surprised if the "anonymous source" received something in return for his information. As long as there's someone willing to hand something out, there will be takers. Apple has already used "hooks" more than once to identify (and terminate) leaks. It's just a game of whack-a-mole though, as there are probably dozens of anonymous sources at work in Apple. The reporters are the other end of the chain, and are stationary targets. Apple is going after both ends of the deal, but really, which one makes more sense to go after, from either a resource perspective OR an effectiveness perspective?

Looked at another way... if my laptop is stolen, and a week later I find it at Joe's Pawn Shop across town, and it still has the nameplate on the lid that says "this laptop is property of (myname), if found, please call (phone number)", I should have every right to be pissed off at the pawn shop owner for not having contacted me, AND I think it's quite fair that I expect the pawn shop owner to turn over the name of the person that pawned it to the police. Accepting stolen property is illegal. Accepting property you resonably believe to be stolen is also illegal. There should not be much difference between property and trade secrets, they should be treated the same for these purposes.

Re:Enough

[vogelgesang]

"Yes, So much so to show that they are willing to use dirty tactics to supress the first amendment. The target should of been the leak, not the one posting the information." Wasn't this whole thing started in order to gain the identities of those who leaked the information?

Re:Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you miss the fact that Apple is NOT going after the reporter anymore? You probably cut-n-pasted this from last week's discussion.

Re:Enough

[plalonde2]

It is my understanding that there is nothing illegal about distributing trade secrets. Specifically, trade secrets are information that enterprises keep to themselves instead of publishing under copyright or registering under patent law.

The point is that patents oblige a certain level of disclosure that inventors or their companies are uncomfortable disclosing, and so gamble on keeping them secret instead of patented, in the hope of keeping the secret to themselves longer.

It is, however, legal to pursue people who leak secret company information to third parties, which is pretty much what Apple was doing, excepting for the not having a leg to stand on part as far as the journalist was concerned.

Stolen trade secrets are not illegal; employees giving them away is illegal.

Re:Enough

[HybridJeff]

"Stolen trade secrets are not illegal; employees giving them away is illegal."

Thats assuming that the employee signed a contract or non disclosure agreemnt saying that they woudld keep information like this confidential.

Re:Enough

[plalonde2]

Of course, the other thing about trade secrets is that employees should know when they are handling them; I don't think it takes an NDA in that case. Corporations are strong.

And it would be contract violation, which isn't criminal (neither is the trade secret stuff mind you); evidence rules are much more lenient.

Overall, I'm in agreement that Apple did this to put the fear of god into their leak, and are backing off now that that's accomplished.

Re:Enough

[Kplusplus]

Who said they were withdrawing? Seems like a courtesy that they extended, as Apple knows it is in the legal right. It has the law on it's side so whatever the EFF may try, they will lose, Apple will continue it's subpeonas and they will fire someone.

The only reason why they are so adamant about this is Asteriod as it was leaked over 6 months ago and the actual product still has yet to reach the market. So when people suggest the scenario that someone might see what they are working on and beat them to market, this seems like one opportunity for just that.

Re:Enough

[Moofie]

"dirty tactics to supress the first amendment."

Private entities cannot, by definition, suppress the first amendment. The first amendment binds the government, not citizens or corporations.

It might be not very nice, but it's not unconstitutional.

Re:Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

If Apple files a lawsuit, that brings the government into the picture.

Re:Enough

[Richard_at_work]

Distributing trade secrets to unauthorised parties in the US is an offence under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. So yes, it is illegal. As is knowingly receiving and acting upon information which contains trade secrets - which these rumour sites are, as another poster said, build upon. Apple did have a leg to stand on when it came to the Journalist - they had received information that could only be a trade secret at that time. There is no law protecting reporters sources, and a court can (and does) order a court to name or testify against their source. And 'stolen trade secrets' is espionage.

http://nsi.org/Library/Espionage/usta.htm

Re:Enough

[msauve]

they are willing to use dirty tactics to supress the first amendment.

Uh, no. Have you read the First Amendment? It imposes limitation on Congress, not private parties.

Apple can, as a condition of employment, require potential employees to sign a contract which limits their rights to publish or disclose information. They can and do. The First Amendment doesn't apply.

Additionally, if someone induces that employee to break that contract, that party may be subject to suit based on tortuous interference. "Press" or not.

Re:Enough

[JHromadka]

Apple has successfully use subpoenas in the past. However, if they lost this case, they would have no ability to legally threaten people in the future.

AC, I applaud you on using trademark law to make it seem like Apple has to sue. I'm sure that joke went over a lot of people's heads, including the people that moderated you Interesting.

Re:Enough

[l4m3z0r]

FUD, saying that Apple was attempting to suppress the first amendment is absolutely a lie. They weren't trying to silence the press they were trying to extract the sources from the press.

Two very different things. Now consider that the first amendment says nothing about a journalists sources being protected. Apple was just trying to take the shortest path to discover who the leak was.

//sets timer for the usual flamebait/troll mods for daring to speak against apple.

Well you should be modded flamebait/troll but not because the fan boys control the mods, instead its because everything that you said is FUD.

Re:Enough

[jamesbrown1000]

Yes, So much so to show that they are willing to use dirty tactics to supress the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...

Please educate yourself on the differences between Congress -- a branch of the United States Government -- and Apple Computer, Inc. -- a public corporation.

Apple can and will do what it feels is legally viable and permissable in this arena. When Jobs gets Congress to pass a law, and the President to sign it, then we can talk about Apple "suppressing the first amendment."

Re:Enough

[plalonde2]

Wow. US IP law is crazy. So there is basically no advantage to letting the public benefit from the invention if you keep it a secret. Madness.

Re:Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice imagination, but it was actually a reference to the psychological state of fear of Apple Legal that the mac rumors (and leakers) live in. If they got a first amendment ruling, those sites would a lot juicier.

Re:Enough

[arkanes]

Grandparent is wrong about how illegal it is to recieve trade secrets. It's illegal to induce someone to reveal trade secrets - I'm not an expert on trade secret law, so I'm not sure what exactly is considered inducement.

The disadvantage of a trade secret as opposed to a patent is that trade secrets have no legal protection once they aren't secret anymore - that's why you have to have NDAs and contractual guarantees that your employees won't reveal them. If you embedd your trade secret IP in a product, and it's reverse engineered out, you have no protection. Trade secrets basically give you the power to keep things secret, as long as you actively do so. Once you stop keeping it secret, the information is no longer protected. The formula for Coke, for example is (famously) a trade secret rather than a patent. If published, it would no longer be protected and anyone could make something identical to Coke.

Re:Enough

[nacturation]

Trademark law? How did you get that from the AC's post? I think what the GP was saying is that if the court rules that Apple is legally unable to subpoena a reporter for his/her sources, then that gives reporters carte blanche in the future to report any and all leaked information, even if they know it violates the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. After all, Apple can't do anything about it as a precedent has been set.

Re:Enough

[nacturation]

The formula for Coke, for example is (famously) a trade secret rather than a patent.

It's a trade secret because you generally can't patent recipes. Coca Cola could try and patent the method for preparing the ingredients, etc. but that would still reveal the ingredients and someone would find a non-infringing way of duplicating the methods. Plus, after a few decades the patent would expire and we'd see a rush of Coke-a-like products on the market.

Re:Enough

[minimunchkin]

You don't actually give a way that they could catch the person without going for the reporter. If it were coding leaks then sure, you can insert specific code - but it was a hardware leak. What part of 'small $500 headless mac and cheap displayless flash player' can you distort in order to catch your leak. You can offer up $700 four foot wide 128mb flash player - but it ain't going to work. There is no other way to identify this leak. Am I glad? No. But they either do it this way or not at all.

Re:Enough

[macdaddy]

You're missing an extremely obvious point. Apple is required by law to defend their trade secrets and trademarks OR THEY WILL LOSE THE PROTECTIONS GRANTED TO THEM. They have no choice in the matter. They either do due diligence and defend themselves now or they will have no resource later. It's not rock science folks. Apple's not being a bully. They're doing what they're required to do by law.

Re:Enough

[bryan1945]

"There are many other ways to identify leaks - the best being drop multiple hooks to people that are suspected, and watch for the fake hook to be posted."

Wow- do you live in a Tom Clancy novel? You really think they should use super-spy tactics instead of trying to find out who leaked the info in the first place?

Keep waiting for your martyrdom (sp?), but Apple wasn't squashing free speech, they were looking for the leak, which is probably fully ok (NDA and such). Yeah, they overstepped in their zealousness, but they backed off. How often do you see that?

Have a nice weekend!
B

Re:Enough

[iamacat]

If published, it would no longer be protected and anyone could make something identical to Coke.

Oh, I bet any university chemistry lab can tell exactly how Coca-Cola was made, including exact natural or artificial source of each component. The only thing they can not do is use the official trademark name and logo. The secret is only part of their own version of reality distortion field.

Re:Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is required by law to defend their trade secrets and trademarks OR THEY WILL LOSE THE PROTECTIONS GRANTED TO THEM.

Firstly, this case has absolutely nothing to do with trademarks. Nothing. Zilch. Zero. Nada.
Secondly, there is no requirement in law to "defend" their trade secrets. It's not a patent, you know.

Apple's not being a bully

Yes they are.

They're doing what they're required to do by law.

No they're not. They're doing what the law allows them to do. Big difference.

Re:Enough

[arkanes]

This sort of reverse analysis is actually a lot harder than you'd think. The composition of the result, sure, but not the ingredients used to create it. Compare trying to figure out the exact ingredients in a cake just from the finished cake.

Re:Enough

[Scudsucker]

the best being drop multiple hooks to people that are suspected, and watch for the fake hook to be posted

Stop for a minute. Give Apple a few million dollars to start tons of fake projects to fish for leaks. Then give them millions more to compenate them for lost sales when consumers are disappointed that Apple really didn't just release a quad core G5 iBook and decide to wait till they do.

Once you've done all that, then you can climb back on your high horse and preach to them.

It was all Jobs's anger at a percieved "Loss of Thunder" which using the benefit of 20/20 hindsight was the equivalent of a mountain out of a molehill.

Just because Thinksecret was right this time, doesn't mean they'll be right next time. Just check out the history of the Osbourne portables to see why this can be a bad thing.

//sets timer for the usual flamebait/troll mods for daring to speak against apple.

Too bad there isn't a mod for "-1 Asshat". You've earned it.

Re:Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's not being a bully

Yes they are.

Bullshit. Person more than likely violated NDA, employment contract, plus trade secret law by disclosing confidential information to another person in return for a fee.

Press knows it's receiving confidential information then publishes it without any appreciable merit (e.g. whistleblower). Press pays said individual for disclosing it, which is where trade secret law comes into play. Press attempts to hide said source, not because public safety is at stake, but because they don't want to lose a source of future revenue.

I'm sorry, but if the press wants to guarantee future revenue, it should do so by acting in a less slimy manner. Maybe I missed that part of Journalism 101 that talked about bribing people to break contracts and laws so that you don't have to get off your fat ass and create your own stories.

Again, if public safety is at stake, no law should stop you from publishing or defending your source - but this is just trade secret law. The public is not going to be appreciably saved by finding out that Apple is going to sell a pound of shit inside a box in 6 months time. They'll find out within a matter of minutes at product release time. The smell eminating from stores with "fresh product" inside should be enough.

Thank You

[TekMonkey]

Thanks Apple. It's ridiculous to sue an Apple enthusiast website.

Not quite...

[Avyakata]

"Apple probably figured out that dragging people into court usually does little for one's popularity."

Pre-teen girl: Lyke OMG!!1!11!1!!! did u c how apple dragged all the peeps to court or somethin'?? I totalie wont by a ipOd now!

Ya...I don't think it'll shake down that way....

Re:Not quite...

[skweegee]

Maybe they're taking what happened to SCO into consideration. Oh wait no one really liked them before that mess anyway.

Re:Not quite...

[irokitt]

Seeing how rabid some of the Apple fans* are here on Slashdot, Apple won't lose enough karma from this to send them under.

*(Not that I blame them, the Linux/*BSD/MS Bob fans all get there drooling in too).

Re:Not quite...

[Anonymous Coward]

More like:

Stock Investor 1: 2, did you hear about the Apple lawsuits? What a ripoff of those insanely loyal customers, they obviously didn't run that by the PR dept first... Sounds like Steve is moving in the wrong direction. I'm selling my stock.

Stock Investor 2: Yeah 1, that's like totally uncool. *sells AAPL*

(times 10000)

Re:Not quite...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or like "Apple put the smack down on my fellow journalist. Let's see if I can't find some more faults for this review".

Re:Not quite...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's hot.

Re:Not quite...

[porcupine8]

Even after I've realized what it actually says, every time I glance at that I think it says Linux/BDSM...

Re:Not quite...

[Anonymous Coward]

sick, dude.

Re:Not quite...

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting theory... Just one small problem.

Is stupid!!!

(Ah, Peter Sellers... we miss ya...)

AAPL is up, not down. Investors probably are happy that Apple took steps to fend off industrial espionage.

Re:Not quite...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a pre-teen girl, but I did cancel my shuffle order.

Re:Not quite...

[Anonymous Coward]

the Linux/*BSD/MS Bob fans all get there drooling...

All get where??

Re:Not quite...

[dtk13]

Ha! Yep thats what they sound like. Too bad Microsoft/RIAA hasnt caught on to this way of thinking.

The Real Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

While Apple is notorious for its secrecy before MacWorlds, Apple probably figured out that dragging people into court usually does little for one's popularity.

They probably caught the employee who was leaking.

Re:The Real Deal

[ScrewMaster]

Yeah ... and what that says for the continued use of urinals in corporate America is anyone's guess.

Re:The Real Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

I was talkin' drug tests.

And the employee was Jobs.

And the drug was acid.

Re:The Real Deal

[Mattintosh]

They must've followed the trail of wet carpet. Springing a leak is a difficult thing to keep to yourself.

Apple makes the right choice again

[Dancin_Santa]

Sometimes, when I feel most let down by Steve Jobs for doing something that just seems to be contrary to the very Apple-nature of the company, he makes a decisive reversal of tack and makes everything all right again.

No one wants to see the fans and lovers of the Macintosh persecuted for trying to find ways to love the company more, and that's what this is: just another way for Mac fans to find out more about the company.

On the other hand, it is perfectly understandable, as it is part of business, to keep future plans as secret as possible to keep the dogs on Wall Street at bay. However, it was really disappointing to see Apple trying to exact its revenge on those who love it the most.

I'm glad Steve Jobs made this decision. He continues to lead the company in the right direction and bringing us, the loyal Apple fans, the most advanced computers of today.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[erich.keane]

I stand by the theory that it is a bad idea to start suing your best free advertiser! I really dont care how much "hey look whats coming" data is released early, the worst it can do is raise interest in the product! I understand you may say that it lets competitors into the game a little early, but honestly, who other than apple fanatics gives a crap about what they are making? I know people copy them, but again, still not direct competition. Suing a HUGE apple fan site is the worst way to get good publicity.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[Space cowboy]

Hmm. Perhaps.

Steve (and I have a *lot* of respect for the guy) is as hard-nosed as the next businessman. Apple's been around for a looong time now (in computer-time, of course) and it's a professional organisation now, with all that that entails.

Steve (if it was him that made the final decision - it could have been 'Legal') won't have done it to be cuddly. He'll have done it for sound business reasons - the best path for the business is to do X, we'll do X. It could be that he thinks perhaps he's put the fear of [insert random deity] into those who would have continued to leak, and he's satisfied with that... It could be that Apple really do have to do more before they can issue subpoenas.

Apple's a cool company. They make cool hardware and the best damn unix workstation I've ever used (prior to OSX I wasn't impressed, but I am now :-). That doesn't mean their money-men, legal folks, HR etc. aren't just as 'bad' (read: for the company at any cost) as everywhere else (with suitable apologies to those who buck the trend).

Simon.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[ScrewMaster]

I'm glad Steve Jobs made this decision. He continues to lead the company in the right direction and bringing us, the loyal Apple fans, the most advanced computers of today.

You work for Apple's PR department, don't you.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[Anonymous Coward]

...for doing something that just seems to be contrary to the very Apple-nature of the company...

I've been using apple machines for a long time, but even I know that this is perfectly in character for the company...

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[ScrewMaster]

"appleturfer". I like it.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[ScrewMaster]

Yeah, well. Apple has this carefully-crafted maverick image, but they're just as much run by suits as any other company their size. Have to be ... Wall Street wouldn't have it any other way. Once you become a publicly-traded corporation, your management style has to conform to the dictates of the financial world.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[blanks]

"Sometimes, when I feel most let down by Steve Jobs for doing something that just seems to be contrary to the very Apple-nature of the company, he makes a decisive reversal of tack and makes everything all right again."

What are you talking about? It didn't say they were dropping the subpoenas, they are holding off because the EFF is filing for a protective order for its clients. If The EFF succeed then Apple fails and is still evil. If the EFF fails, Apple with get their subpoenas and is still evil.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[laughingcoyote]

Sometimes, just when I'm afraid that some big company is going to trample over a fundamental right again, the EFF gets up and stands in their way. Every success is a reminder of why I'm a member, and really, every failure is too-a reminder of the urgent need.

If you're going to be a fan, then for godsakes, pick an organization worth your time. Apple isn't one, they're just another megacorporation, who'll gladly use the threat of a lawsuit to stifle speech they dislike. They've clearly shown that.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[GlassHeart]

I really dont care how much "hey look whats coming" data is released early, the worst it can do is raise interest in the product!

No, it can unreasonably raise expectations to the point that reality becomes underwhelming.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[DAldredge]

Please explain what makes apple computer the 'most advanced computers of today'

Re: Apple makes the right choice again

[gidds]

it was really disappointing to see Apple trying to exact its revenge on those who love it the most.

It's not a matter of revenge. It's a matter of trying to find out who in their own organisation is leaking information in breach of their NDA. Isn't that a more reasonable aim?

It's also a matter of trying to prevent the more gratuitous rumours spreading. You can argue all you want that rumours are good for Apple, and maybe some are, but they're a double-edge sword, and one that Apple has no control over. For example, an over-optimistic rumour, or even a completely true but mistimed one, could easily cause large numbers of people to hold off buying one particular model in the false expectation that something better was about to be released. That sort of thing could do quite serious damage.

While the rumour sites are just guesswork and good-natured speculation, then they're relatively harmless; but when they get a reputation for inside information and lots of people start trusting them, then I don't think they're doing anyone any good in the long run, not even Apple fans.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a problem somewhat unique to Apple in that they rely so heavily on the Fanboy Hype Factor to move products.

After the initial PR blowout, Apple doesn't keep their products competitive in terms of price or performance and they quickly become "underwhelming" even to the true believers. Consquentially, they are highly dependant on making a big splash for new models.

If they Apple had a more normal product cycle, maybe Teh Steve's Ego wouldn't get stroked, but they would have more even sales growth. And it wouldn't matter if new model specs were underwhelming because people wouldn't feel like it was the last new model of the year.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[drinkypoo]

See also: Sony. Mr. Sulu, fanboy factor nine!

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[2nd Post!]

What fundamental right is it that Apple is trampling? The right to disseminate private information?

Like if I got your credit card number, and published it on my website?

Whether we value it or not, these details are the heart of Apple; Apple's products are their monetary core, their creative core, their everything.

If a competitor gains an advantage through these publications and rumors, then it is Apple that gets hurt; not the rumor sites (though maybe indirectly), not the readers (again, maybe indirectly), but Apple.

So I ask again: Apple is trampling our fundamental right to share sensitive and private data, and you think it's okay that they've backed off? Wait until someone gets insider info from a credit card warehousing company and publishes it online.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[laughingcoyote]

That analogy is flawed. I imagine Apple and their employees hold many corporate credit cards, and if this guy got hold of and published them, he should be forced to stop. If he has done so, you might want to submit a story of your own, that changes the dynamics of the whole thing. However, until then, let's work with what he HAS done.

A better analogy would be if you put up on your website that I had just thought up a great new product and would be bringing it to market shortly. I'm sorry, but I don't buy this idea that a corporation may control and squelch information just because it may be worth some money to them.

Oh, I'm not sure how fundamental YOU think the right being violated by IP laws is, but I'll post it here for you to decide for yourself.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[2nd Post!]

And according to your quote, how does the First Amendment apply? Has Apple gone to Congress to legislate away blogs, fansites, rumor sites, or private websites?

What Apple has done is the opposite actually, using legislation (subpoenas) to force these people to TALK. A subpoena is, "A command to a witness to appear and give testimony."

So what is the First Amendment right we're losing? The right to remain silent? No speech has been abridged, no press has been silenced.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[laughingcoyote]

It has been ruled by the Supreme Court that forcing a journalist to reveal a confidential source is an abridgement of freedom of the press. Apple is attempting to do just that. Therefore, Apple is attempting to chill freedom of the press. And I do imagine if they thought they had a hope in hell of winning, they'd be suing to shut the site down.

The First Amendment covers rights other than free speech, that's just the most "famous" one, so to speak.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[Nastard]

Face it, everyone who owns a Mac works for the Apple PR department. Their business is built on this.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[Moofie]

"After the initial PR blowout, Apple doesn't keep their products competitive in terms of price or performance and they quickly become "underwhelming" even to the true believers"

Huh? I must be missing this feature deflation. My iPod still works fine. My Powerbook was still a great deal when I bought it.

I guess they must be more beleaguered than I thought...

If Apple had a "more normal product cycle", they'd be HP. Say what you will about Teh Steve (I happen to think he's kind of a dick), he's got a vision, and he's executing it most effectively.

It wasn't an accident that they've basically been profitable since the release of the iMac.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[SoLO]

You work for Apple's PR department, don't you.

Yeah, they're called "customers" in the Mac world :)

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been ruled by the Supreme Court that forcing a journalist to reveal a confidential source is an abridgement of freedom of the press.

Correction: A confidential source speaking against the government.

There are no laws protecting the identity of industrial spies in such a manner.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[Richard_at_work]

That and the very real possibility that a competitor can act on the information to bring a competing product to market before the leaked product. That causes very real damage.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[Richard_at_work]

Is that so? Then why are courts doing it? I quote:

A US appeals court has ruled that two reporters must testify about their sources in an investigation into the leaking of a CIA officer's name.

and

"There is no First Amendment privilege protecting the evidence sought," Judge David Sentelle wrote in his decision.

Previously, US District Judge Thomas F Hogan had ruled that Cooper must testify "regarding alleged conversations they had with a specified executive branch official".

It seems quite plain to me that there is no court backed protection of sources.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[silverdr]

>but honestly, who other than apple fanatics gives a crap about what they are making?

The whole industry!

And, BTW I believe it is also about the principle. If the compalny leaked this - relatively harmless - information then it remotely can leak something much more important to be kept secret...

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[Anonymous Coward]

Though, i think that the most likely case = rushed, crappy, and in general barely adequate, then when apples product comes along, bam, what the produced 'leaked product' really should have been.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[Fwonkas]

The suppression of free speech isn't the issue. The idea is that the "right" of reporters to not reveal their sources encourages a well-functioning media, which is crucial for democracy.

That said, I think that these things can't all fall under a general rule. The Valerie Plame situation is a pretty icky one, as is the dissemination of confidential corporate information.

I kind of like your credit card analogy, though I'd change it from having "someone" publish it on a web site to having an established journalist publish it in a newspaper. I mean, it's obvious that the first is wrong, but in the latter case, if the information was somehow considered news-worthy, it's a little more complicated.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[Ender Ryan]

Could you suck any harder on Jobs's cock? He's a fucking businessman, and a sometimes ruthless one at that. He doesn't give a flying fuck about you or anyone else lapping up everything that Apple produces, he just wants your money for fuck's sake. Stop being a "loyal" fan.

Christ on a crooked crutch, no wonder so many people hate all things Apple...

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[worm eater]

Aren't you forgetting that they sued ThinkSecret before MacWorld -- all but confirming the rumors. If they had wanted to keep the Mac mini in the bottle they would have sued ThinkSecret after the release of the product. The timing on this, I think, kept the story alive. If you look at the articles from around that time, after Apple sued, most of them focused on the fact that this confirmed the rumor -- not that Steve Jobs is the enemy of free speech.

And frankly, I don't think the suit will hurt Apple's bottom line at all. Most people either don't care, or realize that trade secrets are important and worth protecting. I'd be willing to bet that it's only a slim minority of people that strongly feel major corporations are out of line in defending their trade secrets. It's even a smaller portion of those people that would actually let this change their purchasing habits.

Re:Apple makes the right choice again

[StrongAxe]

I kind of like your credit card analogy, though I'd change it from having "someone" publish it on a web site to having an established journalist publish it in a newspaper. I mean, it's obvious that the first is wrong, but in the latter case, if the information was somehow considered news-worthy, it's a little more complicated.

And just who decides who is an "established journalist", and what is "considered news-worthy"? The courts? If so, what objective criteria should they use?

The distinction between publishing information on dead trees vs. dead electrons is getting more and more muddy these days. Should professionalism be the yardstick? If so, why should somebody being paid money for his opinions give him more civil rights?

Makes no difference

[MunchMunch]

I wonder if anyone expected Apple to actually go through with it, seeing as how the damage was already done and after Macworld, it would be moot times two.

The fact is they know they can scare off other websites in the future with legal action, and they'll continue to do so--that they ended up having to put their money where their mouth was here is simply to show that they'll actually take the first steps if necessary.

This site was an exception to the rule--the rule being, if you are a large corporation, you can send a takedown notice anywhere for any reason, no matter how spurious, and 99% of the people will comply. That is still true today, and the fact that Apple finally was called on one bluff really doesn't change much.

Re:Makes no difference

[Anonymous Coward]

"I wonder if anyone expected Apple to actually go through with it, seeing as how the damage was already done and after Macworld, it would be moot times two."

Damage? What damage? This was probably the best free publicity they could get.

Re:Makes no difference

[Anonymous Coward]

This was probably the best free publicity they could get.


Really? Not Time Magazine? Not the Wall Street Journal? Not even word-of-mouth?

Some rumors site which nobody outside of apple.slashdot.org ever links to (and even then, most of us don't read) is the very best free publicity Apple could get!?

Shit, no wonder they're beleaguered!

this won't be popular

[conJunk]

this won't be a popular position (probably), but i think it's rather unfortunate.

i don't think the journalists should be required to divulge their sources... i really don't

however, i don't think that those who try to turn their backs on NDAs for personal gains should be protected

i was kinda interested to see how the whole suit would pan out in court... i thought the EFFs argument was sound, but apple seemed to have a strong case

i was really curious about how that one would go

Re:this won't be popular

[Darthmalt]

I agree this was an interesting case. However I think Apple would have won. Wasnt some journalist jailed / fined for not revealing his sources after a judge oredered him to?

Too bad there isn't a way to quicksave, see how it would have turned out and then restore to the last quicksave.
Wow, I really need to lay off Rome: Total War

Re:this won't be popular

[metlin]

Agreed that this is just a simple case of information leak that did not have any drastic consequences. However, what if there are leaks of information of a more confidential nature in the future?

Apple has always stayed ahead of the game by innovating and bringing out things that its competitors never quite thought about - leaks of this sort would put ideas into the heads of its competitors, which could be bad for business.

And besides, if someone is ready to violate an NDA for a little gain, who knows what else they'd be divulging? I can *totally* see Apple's point of view - when you work under someone, you need to abide by their rules.

Re:this won't be popular

[LWATCDR]

Then you have get into the issue are Bloggers and Website publishers covered under freedom of the press? If so then is everybody that puts up a website covered under freedom of the press? I will bet the traditional press will say no.

Re:this won't be popular

[magarity]

i don't think the journalists should be required to divulge their sources

There's nowhere in 'freedom of the press' that says no one has to say where or how they got the information they pressed. Journalists claim that keeping sources secret is needed to get ahold of some information in the first place but we should all remember that journalists and their sources are fallable people with personal biases. It's way too often (especially recently) used to promote the journalist's personal agenda to make an indignant show of "protecting" sources. As if how dare anyone question a journalist! Well, if you can't reveal the source so its validity can be confirmed then it's an unsubstantiated rumor; journalists who say 'someone told me x but I can't tell you who so you can have a way to verify my story' should be laughed out of town.

Re:this won't be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

What I like is that the EFF's line will end up making it "If you sign an NDA, you cannot tell anyone. Except a journalist. That is quite alright to do."

Re:this won't be popular

[R.Caley]

i don't think the journalists should be required to divulge their sources... i really don't

however, i don't think that those who try to turn their backs on NDAs for personal gains should be protected

The two are not in conflict. The journalists didn't sign NDAs.

Apple should have management procedures in place to track sensitive information and find leaks, or, where that is impossible due to the nature of the information, they should not make the information's secrecy commercially vital.

If they can't be arsed to look after what they consider vital information, they shouldn't expect others to do the job for them.

Re:this won't be popular

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

i don't think the journalists should be required to divulge their sources... i really don't

Hypothetical Situation:

I own a major newspaper. I have a colleague who works at a competing major news paper. I pay him $10,000 every week and he gives me all the passwords needed to change the other newspaper's web site, and maybe all their bank account numbers. I publish this information in my newspaper with the title, "Other newspaper completely insecure, anyone can change any of their online articles with these passwords!" The net result is, I profit because the competitions stock goes in the toilet and mine goes up. As a reporter, I did not break the law, my colleague did. You think that I should not be required by the courts to name them? You think I should be immune to a subpoena? I think you are placing way too much faith in the fact that reporters will always be honest and not abuse this new power you want to give them.

Re:this won't be popular

[EvilStein]

"i don't think the journalists should be required to divulge their sources... i really don't"

But, in this case, it's just some kid with a website. That's one thing to keep in mind. This isn't a bona fide journalist.

It's a kid with a website.

Several years ago, the Macworld folks clamped down on "Press passes" because there were *so many* "journalists" applying. They didn't work for any news agency, they were just more kids with websites trying to get into the keynote for free. It used to work for a lot of them, but not anymore.

The line between "kid with a website" and "journalist" needs to be drawn somewhere.

Re:this won't be popular

[White Roses]

journalists who say 'someone told me x but I can't tell you who so you can have a way to verify my story' should be laughed out of town.

Tell that to Woodward and Bernstein.

I know, different case, different context. Just trying to point out there is some grey area here. Apple and the EFF are just trying to shine two different lights on it.

Re:this won't be popular

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The line between "kid with a website" and "journalist" needs to be drawn somewhere.

No. A kid (20 year old) with a website is a journalist. A ten year old with a toy printing press is a journalist. Anyone who reports is a reporter. There is no need to draw a distinction, because U.S. law does not make one. Nor are journalists given any special protections, except in the case of whistle blower statutes. It is a moot issue.

Re:this won't be popular

[dasdrewid]

The EFF has a good argument, but it also brings up a lot of problems.

Plus, I remember there being a California law about it being illegal to give out info you knowingly got from someone who broke an NDF or something like that, which would put all those websites in the wrong. Apple, then, would have just as good an argument, if not better.

Re:this won't be popular

[Anonymous Coward]

The journalists didn't sign NDAs.

No, they just bribed an individual to break contractual obligations (NDA, employment) to release trade secret information.

That act is a crime under US law and first amendment protections goes out the window with it. The least they can do is divulge the name of other individual who broke the law. They already know the journalist did.

If I get information out of someone, then kill them, then sell that information to a journalist, do you honestly think the journalist won't be compelled to divulge my name if the police figure out that the only person who could know this information was the murderer? I committed a crime. I must be punished. The journalist, by not divulging my name, is protecting me. The journalist is in effect conspiring in the murder and will most definately be brought up on charges if he doesn't divulge my name. What public good is served by having the journalist protect a murderer?

Listen, it's one thing if the press is hiding sources to protect the best interest of the public, like in Watergate. Whistleblowers and their press contacts need to be protected if it's going to better the public good. But unless Apple is going to sell warmed over shit in a shiny box for $7500 in six months and pull off some grand hoax to make millions of people buy it thinking they're getting a computer, when in fact they're just getting warmed over shit in a siny box, the public doesn't need to know.

The first amendment does not guarantee press revenue above all costs to society.

The facts are more nuanced

[FunWithHeadlines]

From the article, and quoting EFF's Newitz:

"Newitz said that "Apple may have a case" in suing anonymous individuals for violations of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (the Act holds liable those who receive trade secrets that were knowingly misappropriated), "but the issue is how they're getting the information." She said that Apple's actions are following a "tortured route" and that the company seems to be attempting to "beat these journalists with litigation."

The EFF's position is that the Web sites in question are viable journalistic endeavors, which places their writers under reporter shield laws, both at the federal and state level.

The federal shield law, which is based on the First Amendment, guarantees the "free flow of information" and allows reporters to assure sources that they will remain anonymous.

"There is a loophole--it's not that a reporter never has to give up information," Newitz said. "They can be forced to reveal sources only if every other source is exhausted." Newitz said that she felt Apple has not come close to examining other potential methods of identifying the parties who leaked confidential information; she said that to her knowledge, Apple has never performed or admitted to performing an internal investigation into NDA (nondisclosure agreement) violations.

The facts of this case are a bit more nuanced than I have seen discussed so far. Does the First Amendment protect a reporter's right to withhold identify his or her anonymous sources? Yes. There are times when a reporter is asked to break this bond, and we are seeing a current case over the probable felony that resulted from revealing Valerie Plame's CIA affiliation where the issues are much more serious than this Apple business. In this more serious case, a crime was committed, and a couple of levels of courts have ordered the reporters to identify their sources or else face contempt charges. The New York Times, among others, continues to fight this pressure to reveal anonymous sources so as to protect the precendent for future anonymous sources.

This Apple case is not nearly as important, and no court is going to go around ordering reporters to reveal Apple news sources the way they are with those associated with the White House who may have committed a felony. And not only is the Apple case involving less serious information, it seems Apple hasn't even done the basics first: Conduct thorough in-house investigation into which employee is doing the leaking. Even the EFF says that once Apple has done everything else, forcing a news source to report the identity of an anonymous source might be on the table, from the legal perspective.

So for now, Apple is backing down. But this is not the clear-cut case that we've seen. It may yet come down to the Apple news sites being asked to reveal their sources, for it may well be that some Apple employees are violating the terms of their employment. And that's what Apple is really trying to do: Find employees who are violating contract rules. But first they have to do everything else to find out this information before they think of asking a reporter to give up his or her information. But that could yet happen.

Re:The facts are more nuanced

[Anonymous Coward]

To reiterate your point: Most First Amendment cases are a balance between the rights of different parties. Obviously High Treason (in Plame case) versus telling people about a computer 1 week early are two entirely different things.

It's questionable whether the Mac Mini was a Trade Secret to begin with, since Apple had no intention of keeping it secret. A new product doesn't rise to the same level as Coke's Secret Formula, Customer Lists, and other things that the Trade Secret law was designed to protect.

Re:The facts are more nuanced

[Anonymous Coward]

And not only is the Apple case involving less serious information, it seems Apple hasn't even done the basics first: Conduct thorough in-house investigation into which employee is doing the leaking. Even the EFF says that once Apple has done everything else, forcing a news source to report the identity of an anonymous source might be on the table, from the legal perspective.

What makes you think that Apple hasn't done an in house investigation? Even the oposing EFF spokesperson didn't go that far, she just said she didn't *know* that Apple had exhausted every other possible lead.

The fast that the leaked information in question was about a supposed midi product code named asteroid that was never released, leads me to believe that this incident was allready part of an internal mole hunt.

Re:The facts are more nuanced

[FunWithHeadlines]

Yes, you're right, I should have phrased it differently. I wrote "it seems" based on what EFF said, but as you note it wasn't that clear cut, and they certainly don't know for sure. I'm sure Apple did do in-house investigation, but the fact that they are now backing down a bit tells me there are other steps they could have done but didn't, and they know it.

Re:The facts are more nuanced

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI: When Hotmail was created, everyone involved was under NDA. At the end, that was a total of about 400 people. As a result of that secrecy, Hotmail got a time advantage of about six months to every competitor. And as a result, the owner of Hotmail managed to sell the company to Microsoft for $400 million.

That was a trade secret. It was never intended to keep it secret forever. Violating the NDA would have cost the hotmail owner an unknown percentage of the $400 million, because competitors would have been quicker and the value of the company to Microsoft would have been lower.

Same with the Mac Mini: Dell, Gateway, Hewlett Packard will react to it in some way, which will cost Apple money. If they knew about it fourteen days earlier, their reaction would come fourteen days earlier, starting to cost Apple money fourteen days earlier. Like Dell reducing prices; that was most likely because of the Mac Mini, it probably cost Apple money because some people bought a cheap Dell instead of a Mac Mini, and if Dell had known earlier then they would have reduced their prices earlier.

Lets just get that straight: ANYTHING that a company wants to keep secret is a trade secret as long as they keep it secret (and it is still secret if it is discovered through illegal means, like breaking an NDA).

Re:The facts are more nuanced

[Herbmaster]

Lets just get that straight: ANYTHING that a company wants to keep secret is a trade secret as long as they keep it secret (and it is still secret if it is discovered through illegal means, like breaking an NDA).

This is absurd. A company has to do a lot more than want to keep something a secret for it to be a protected trade secret. If some representative of the company tells you something they shouldn't have, or in confidence, you are not bound to keep it a secret. Only if you agree to an NDA are you bound to keep it a secret. If you violate your NDA, that doesn't automatically make me bound to your NDA. It does mean that the company can sue your pants off. Whether I have any responsibilities whatsoever to keep that secret is still in question, vis-a-vis the first ammendment vs. the UTSA.

Ummm... Damage?

[Anonymous Coward]

With Apple's stock on the rise and iPods flying off the shelves, how can people say that Apple is damaging its reputation with this lawsuit? Seems like if anything their reputation keeps getting better and better.

Apple does not have a popularity problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out it's stock price, and the rabid fanboxen who worship the ground Jobs walks upon.

Combine that with an implementation of Unix that wipes the floor with Linux and BSD for security, stability and (most importantly) usability, and its not hatd to see why Apple can afford to be magnanimous. Fast-forward 20 years, Apple might be in the position Microsoft are in now. Stranger things have happened!

Re:Apple does not have a popularity problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Before Apple plans on taking on Microsoft, they should reverse their marketshare slide before they go below 1%. Maybe the Mac Mini will help, but everyone else is selling computers like hotcakes too.

But you're right that Apple doesn't have a popularity problem, it has an irrelvance problem. Outside of a couple core markets, they simply don't exist in most people's minds.

Re:Apple does not have a popularity problem.

[1_interest_1]

Stock price is not an indicator of consumer popularity. It's not a good indicator of anything, really. It's just the psychological indicator of the value of that company.

Microsoft has a large market value based on its stock price. How "popular" is Microsoft in today's culture? When compared to Apple purely from a stock price standpoint, Microsoft whoops Apple's ass.

Re:Apple does not have a popularity problem.

[calstraycat]

If you had bought Apple stock three years ago, you would have made gains of over four hundred percent. Had you invested the same money in MS three years ago, you would have made, to date, precisely squat. Therefore, over the last three years, Apple has whooped MS's ass from a stockholders standpoint.

MS is no longer a growth company. Their heyday as the premire tech growth stock is gone. Ditto for Intel. There are new stock market darlings these days like Google. The second coming of Apple is kind kind of unique.

Re:Apple does not have a popularity problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... You do know that Apple's market share has more than doubled since Steve Jobs took over, right? What slide are you talking about?

Maybe they want to retain customers

[Ray Alloc]

After all, they want to sell Minimacs, not scare their user base out of it.
Or do they?

Re:Maybe they want to retain customers

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, they want to sell Minimacs, not scare their user base out of it.
Or do they?

Can you tell me why any customers would care about Apple filing these subpoenas? Why would they be "scared" of buying a Mac Mini, because Apple tries to hold its employees to NDA contracts? What does it have to do with any end user?

And, if they are scared off by this - then what company can they buy computer hardware from, who doesn't engage in lawsuits? Intel, AMD, Dell, IBM - they all bring legal cases to protect their rights.

If you are looking for a company without lawyers, good luck. they are mandatory in today's business world. the idea that anyone outside slashdot paranoids care about this, is absurd to say the least.

Re:Maybe they want to retain customers

[drinkypoo]

Scare is probably the wrong word, but don't you think that if it's publicised highly enough, people will be annoyed with Apple stopping websites from bringing them Mac rumors? I think they will. Will it necessarily stop them from buying a Mac? Probably not, since most of the people who care are fanboys anyway. But, it might have some effect.

Re:Maybe they want to retain customers

[Secret Agent 99]

Actually, I think massively lowering the accuracy level of rumor sites (by whatever means -- leave that aside for the moment) would only lead to more speculation and more fun for the fanboys. As recently as a month ago, macrumors.com, essentially an aggregator of Apple news and rumors, was drawing lots of posts saying more or less "it's no fun anymore now that Think Secret has top-notch sources."

Re:In Case of /. ing

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck. I was hoping Apple would carry out their plans to sue every Apple enthusiast website.

Now if this was Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

All the anti-microsoftites would feel vindicated about their campaign to ensure everyone else hates MS too.

Instead, since it is Apple, people will give them the benefit of the doubt or even be on Apple's side.

Re:Now if this was Microsoft...

[goMac2500]

What makes this different is Microsoft would never back down. Apple did. It's what makes them different than Microsoft.

Please mod down...troll

[BlaKnail]

Please stop spewing the 1/2 speed/2x price bullshit.

Apple machines may cost more, but not nearly 100% more. Performance is pretty comparable, unless you bought into Intel's "Mhz is the only measure of a chip" mindset.

Re:Please mod down...troll

[Anonymous Coward]

unless you bought into Intel's "Mhz is the only measure of a chip" mindset.

Let me guess! You're gay, right? Because I discovered that Apple users, like many homosexuals, LIKE to be part of a self-selected opressed minority.

Reputation is really important to Apple

[twigles]

Well then Apple customers must be the dumbest ppl on earth, because they are fiercely protective. Personally I've never owned a Mac simply bc of the price, but Apple has always seemed to care about its reputation as far as I could see. For a long time the die-hards were the only ones interested in macs.

Now Apple is still a massive minority of corporate desktops and their iPod/home user market is based as much on marketing and image as on product specs. Maybe more. If they do something unpopular they could literally drive away their base. Apple needs to maintain their reputation as the "little guy's" corporation, even if it's bullshit.

Re:Reputation is really important to Apple

[AlgUSF]

I guess I am the dumbest person on earth then. I am a recent switcher (I got a mac mini). I just got tired of the virii and spyware. This mac mini is the best computer I have ever owned.

Re:Reputation is really important to Apple

[twigles]

Judging by how you cherry-picked one line and missed my entire point I can't argue.

Apple to buy SCO?

[Anonymous Coward]

In related news, flush with cash from the 2-1 stock split,
Apple computer will purchase delisted SCO's worthless stock
- release all SCO software as open source freeware,
and publish OS X for the Amiga platform...

Protecting One's Sources

[bill_mcgonigle]

Closely related: Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper are going to have to go to jail if they don't reveal their sources in the Valerie Plame affair.

We wonder if AppleInsider and Think Secret staff will do the same.

Re:Protecting One's Sources

[Greyfox]

I'm not entirly clear on the Plaime affair. If I understand things correctly, it should be considered an act of treason to leak an undercover CIA operative's name, right? So why aren't more people worked up about it, and why aren't the journalists involved bending over backwards to provide the necessary information?

If it really was treason, then wouldn't protecting those sources also be treason? Shouldn't the whole bunch just be sent to jail to rot (Or be executed if we were at war?)

Am I completely off base here?

Re:Protecting One's Sources

[bill_mcgonigle]

If it really was treason, then wouldn't protecting those sources also be treason? Shouldn't the whole bunch just be sent to jail to rot (Or be executed if we were at war?)

Am I completely off base here?

No, but you live in a country where things are politically correct, there are only shades of gray, and moral equivalence is invoked to explain away anything.

I mean, 29% of the country just voted for a guy who, while a reservist, went to Paris to meet with the some of the highest officials of a country we were at war with.

Re:Protecting One's Sources

[belmolis]

It isn't treason because you can't make a good case that leaking the undercover CIA operative's name was part of a plot to betray the United States. That doesn't mean it wasn't wrong, and it was probably a criminal act under other statutes, but it isn't treason.

In any case, there's no reason to think that the journalists who have been held in contempt of court know who the culprit is. They are NOT the journalists who published the CIA agent's name. They are other journalists who interviewed people about the leak. The prosecutor who is demanding to know their sources is on a fishing expedition.

On the other hand, there is one person who almost certainly does know the identity of the leaker, namely Robert Novak, the columnist who published the agent's name. I think he belongs in jail himself. The legitimate news value of this was small. It certainly didn't justify exposing a CIA agent. Why isn't Robert Novak in jail for contempt of court? I submit that it is because he is a long-time right wing flak who did exactly what the Bush people wanted him to do.

Re:Protecting One's Sources

[belmolis]

I should have thought of this before. Here's the definition of treason in the US Constitution (Article II, Section 3):

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Perhaps in some circumstances exposing an agent could be construed as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, but in this case that would be quite a stretch.

Re:Protecting One's Sources

[arkanes]

Who're you talking about? The US hasn't been at war for 50 years. Note that I try to avoid yellow journalism of all sides, so I'm not really up on the latest "Bush had sex with a moose in college" vrs "Kerry sucked off Gorbaschev in a DC restroom" slanderfest, and I honestly don't know who you're talking about.

Regardless, it's hardly "treason" to meet with officials of an opposing country. War doesn't neccesarily preclude negotiations, formal or informal. If you meant to say that he was a collaborator or spy of some kind, then maybe you should say that directly.

Re:Protecting One's Sources

[arkanes]

Traditionally, "adhering to their enemies" only applies in a state of war (otherwise any sort of crime would be treason - after all, all criminals are enemies of the US from some perspective, right?). Since the US has gone out of it's way to avoid actual declarations of war for 50 years, it's in a bit of a legal tangle when it comes crimes like treason. Of course, as far as I know there's no legal definition of war in the sense of "levying war against them", either.

"Does little for one's popularity

[bonch]

Apple probably figured out that dragging people into court usually does little for one's popularity.

More likely, their mission of letting people know they take product leaks seriously was accomplished. I always expected them to drop the suits--they were just saying, "Hey, we can't have our shit getting leaked, and we are not afraid to pursue it legally if we have to."

Re:"Does little for one's popularity

[Anonymous Coward]

I always expected them to drop the suits--they were just saying, "Hey, we can't have our shit getting leaked, and we are not afraid to pursue it legally if we have to."

And what you've just described is nothing more than jack-booted thuggery.

Maybe they figured out that they had no legal recourse (since the leaker didn't sign an NDA or have any other kind of legal relationship with Apple Corp.)?

Re:"Does little for one's popularity

[Scudsucker]

And what you've just described is nothing more than jack-booted thuggery.

If by "jack-booted thuggery" you mean "protecting their secrets from those who break NDA's and those who encourage them to do so", then yes.

since the leaker didn't sign an NDA or have any other kind of legal relationship with Apple Corp

Wtf are you talking about here? I doubt you could so much as get a job mowing grass at Apple's headquarters without signing an NDA. There is NO WAY someone would have access to one of Apple's top future products without singing one.

Damn!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was so ashamed I painted by power book in black.

/small ...and installed Linux... ;)

No ...

[kitzilla]

While Apple is notorious for its secrecy before MacWorlds, Apple probably figured out that dragging people into court usually does little for one's popularity.

No, they're just saving themselves paperwork. No point filing until the Superior Court of Santa Clara County rules. Nothing moderate or altruistic happening yet.

RTFA: post is misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a victory for the EFF and has nothing to do with any generosity on Apple's part.

the "right choice"...

[Anonymous Coward]

he makes a decisive reversal of tack and makes everything all right again.

The "right choice" would have been never to start a lawsuit in the first place and instead focus on improving their internal security next time.

Apple is a huge company with one of the most experienced marketing teams in the business. No communication happens by accident there. This whole thing was probably planned to reinforce the notion that Apple's technology is so advanced that crooks everywhere are out to spy on them. And people like you are eating it up (as your gushing shows).

I wonder if they got the picture?

[Fahrvergnuugen]

Whoever was leaking the info has presumably caught a serious break here. Maybe apple / steve only intended on scaring the shit out of A) the rat and B) the rumor sites. I bet accurate rumors will be a lot harder to come by from now on.

How quickly they forgive

[EdwinBoyd]

I hope no-one thinks that Apple saw the error of it's ways and decided to withdraw. The main reason they pulled away from this issue was due to the bad press. For a company who's very existence depends on the goodwill of it patrons (as opposed to bland acceptance) this shouldn't come as any surprise. While I agree it's refreshing to see a company actually listen to the community, I certainly don't think Apple should be praised for backing down from a lawsuit that it never should have initiated.

how do other companies handle this?

[eternaltedium]

What I am wondering is, how do companies that are not as much in the spotlight as Apple, handle situations where secret information is being leaked? Companies that don't have to fear for a loss of "fans". Also how big an issue is the cost of such a leak? Anyone got any info on that?

Re:how do other companies handle this?

[Secrity]

It all depends upon which is better for the company. Even companies that few people have ever heard of may have a reputation to watch out for. Companies that sue somebody for information theft can damage their own reputation becaue they are admitting that they cannot keep their own secrets safe.

Thanks for the factual analysis!

[Infonaut]

Overcharging their customers by giving half the performance at twice the price.... Wow, that's simply amazing. Apple has been able to survive (barely) for all these years and they've managed to deliver only 50% of the value and half of the capabilities of products from competing companies.

I think it's because all Mac users are artists, and artists are all very emotional and tend to be poor with numbers. So even though they're spending more, they don't even realize it. Silly artists!

What I don't understand is why the universities and government agencies that are using Macs for clustering and other uses are buying computers that are twice as expensive and half as capable. It must be that these purchasers are part of the loyal "Apple fan base," sort of like Milwaukee Brewers fans. They hang tough and spend the money only because they feel a special attachment to Apple, rather than because Apple products have any real worth.

You're right about Apple dumping on their customers and fans too. Did you hear about the time Steve Jobs cancelled the second day of his concert in Boston, and nobody who bought tickets even got a refund? What an arrogant bastard!

Personally I'll stick with the alternatives. IE 6 kicks ass, my Windows XP system never gives me any security problems, and I like buying new hardware every two years, because it guarantees I'll be able to brag about the CPU speed of my computer to my buddies.

Re:Thanks for the factual analysis!

[Anonymous Coward]

........BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Re:Thanks for the factual analysis!

[Anonymous Coward]

Truthfully, Apple's marketshare for scientific clusters is probably lower than their marketshare for personal computers. You only know about the (totally botched) VA Tech cluster because it was front-n-center on Apple.com.

Re:Thanks for the factual analysis!

[xenoandroid]

Man, you said it.

Damn you Jobs! I was looking forward to that concert too!!!

RE: BUT - where's the gain here?

[King_TJ]

Has anyone even claimed that the person/people leaking this info to Apple fan/rumor sites was receiving money for the information?

It seems to me more like this info was leaked by a Mac fan to other like-minded folks who buy the majority of the products sold anyway. Attacking these people for "NDA violations" isn't much different than record companies suing the biggest Metallica fans for p2p sharing some Metallica songs. Legally, yeah, you can do it - but how sensible is it really? Bite the hands that feed you, and you'll simply end up with less food.

"What is a 'journalist'?"

[daveschroeder]

In the most recent slashdot story posted on this topic, I asked the question, "What is a 'journalist'," considering that there are current, in force US law(s) that may have been violated by a 3rd party knowingly revealing information that could reasonably be assumed to be protected by a confidentiality agreement, and in the ensuing insistence that these web sites should be protected as "journalists", I got an array of replies about what constitutes a "journalist":

"A person is acting in a journalist capacity when they provide non fiction information about contemporary events to an audience [via a medium other than direct speech]. Those are the criteria."

"I don't see why bloggers can't be considered journalists."

"...anyone can be a journalist if by journalist you mean someone who distributes information (regardless of accuracy) to a public audience (regardless of size). Bloggers? They're journalists. Editor of your high school newspaper? Yep, journalist, too."

"I think that many websites constitute being called a 'journal' ... and hence the creators of the journal are called 'journalists'"

"...a journalist is anyone who can get their documented beliefs published."

"Even the lamest 'blog is a "journal" unarguably. So yes, anyone with a web site is a "journalist". The government should not get into the business of determining who's a "legitimate journalist" and who's a "illegitimate journalist not worthy of the protections of freedom of the press". To do so would amount to licensing journalists, which I think is very much the wrong idea."

"It's 2005. "Journalism" means everything and everything."

"A journalist is anyone reporting news to the public. That could be by handbill, newspaper, broadside, web site, word of mouth, by scribbling on a piece of paper. It should be as broad as possible. Spreading of information == good."

Now, considering all of these replies that insist that Nick Ciarelli (of Think Secret) and these other websites are "journalists", and anyone who's apparently got any kind of website at all on any topuc should be considered a "journalist", certainly that means that Jeff Gannon (aka James Guckert) is a "journalist" too?

Or does it not work both ways?

Re:"What is a 'journalist'?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Kitten, I think the real question on everyone's mind is: Do you go both ways?

Re:"What is a 'journalist'?"

[PortWineBoy]

Mod Parent UP!

I'm sick of so called "journalists" posting whatever they want. This is a valid question. I was trained as a journalist, I worked at several medium sized periodicals (trentonian, trenton times) and really think that my ethical training was an integral part of what I learned. Yea, mebbe I'm no Sam Donaldson, but seriously, what is a journalist? Some blogger w/a audience?

Re:"What is a 'journalist'?"

[Secret Agent 99]

"A journalist is anyone reporting news to the public. "

I like this one. Just one question: since when is information about a company's future plans (whether possible, probable, or leaked) "news"? I thought news consisted of things that are past or ongoing.

Re:"What is a 'journalist'?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeff Gannon is a both a male whore and a journalist. Which job got him access to the white house?

Re:"What is a 'journalist'?"

[Herbmaster]

Now, considering all of these replies that insist that Nick Ciarelli (of Think Secret) and these other websites are "journalists", and anyone who's apparently got any kind of website at all on any topuc should be considered a "journalist", certainly that means that Jeff Gannon (aka James Guckert) is a "journalist" too?

Or does it not work both ways?/

The situation with Jeff Gannon doesn't even begin to compare and you know it.

Yes, Jeff Gannon/Games Guckert is a journalist, and deserves all of the legal and constitutional protections of one (whatever those may be, it still isn't clear to me if journalists have different rights from everybody else). But I haven't heard that anyone is trying to bring charges against Mr. Gannon for some crime or infraction. The fact is Jeff Gannon is a partisan hack, a fraud, and a troll. On top of that, he's obvious about it. ("Divorced from reality?" come on! the trick to editorializing is to present an opinion while sounding unbiased.) He has no more business at white house press conferences than Nick Ciarelli does. The complaint is that the white house staff lets him participate in press conferences, and the president takes his questions. They ought to have higher standards. The white house has earned its criticism for this one.

Re:Snort

[Anonymous Coward]

By the same argument.
Windows customers should hold M$ accountable for taking there fast cheap hardware slowing it a crawl, and invading their privacy, making them pay for additional for virus checkers
or linux users should hold Linus Accountable for making them think, and that responsiblity for there own actions.

Buyer Beware (or what ever the legal Latin term is)
you get what you pay for, regardless if you pay with cash, time or sanity.

Cooked

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't cited your numbers for the dell.

Veritest PowerMac G5 comparison That's a PDF, I'm sorry to say.

This is the report your Apple scores came from. When Veritest ran the G5 against a P4 3 GHz Dell, the dell had an FP base of 693. You quote a 2.8 GHz dell at 1209.

Does this mean that a 2.8 GHz P4 is twice as fast as a 3 Ghz P4, or does it mean you made a big mistake somewhere? You *do* know that CPU benchmarking requires a careful equalization of all other parameters? For example, the G5 in this test had one processor physically removed and the Dell had its hyperthreading disabled.

Re:Cooked

[Anonymous Coward]

Those Dell numbers are official SPEC (unlike Apple). Also, you didn't cite that Veritest was paid by Apple.

The way it works is that Apple submits numbers for Apple and Dell submits numbers for Dell. Nobody would believe it if Dell said Apple got ~400FP, and nobody believes those VeriTest Dell numbers.

Re:Cooked

[Anonymous Coward]

It probably means that Dell used Intel's compilers, which are much more optimized than gcc. The Veritest numbers attempted to pit hardware against hardware, not compiler against compiler, so they used gcc on both platforms. The G5 numbers wtih IBM's compilers would be a whole lot better, too.

Also, if 2.8 GHz has a 4:1 bus multiplier and 3 GHz has a 6:1, it's very possible that 2.8 GHz would tar and feather the 3 GHz in a SPEC benchmark.

Re:Cooked

[Anonymous Coward]

So if Apple could easily get competitive numbers with a better compiler, why would they leave embarassing numbers on their site?

As for actual comparisons between 2.8 and 3.0, see spec.org.

Oh, so that's how it's done

[Calibax]

So now the plan is:

1. Get some information on future Apple products.
2. Make a web-site with said information.
3. Call yourself a "journalist" to protect the people who leaked the information.
4. Sell adverts on the site so that you can...
5. Profit!!!

The idea behind protecting a journalist's sources is so that people will talk to reporters in confidence, particularly about shady goings on, so that journalists can be free to expose all the gory details without fear. That's all very laudable.

This is different. Here the leak itself is the shady thing. Some guy is breaking his NDA for some unknown reason - money, fame, revenge, make himself feel good, whatever. "Think Secret" was even soliciting people to talk to them about Apple's trade secrets.

There's no dark dangerous secret here that needs to be exposed for the public good. This isn't about protecting a journalist's sources. It's just greed. This guy is not a journalist, he's merely exposing other people's secrets to make money. Calling himself a journalist doesn't make it so.

Re:Oh, so that's how it's done

[ediron2]

Um, aren't trade secrets and NDA's and all that pretty much all about greed, too? For that matter, most journalists will tell you they'd take a bit of risk to get a big scoop, because that is how they get fame and... a bigger paycheck.

Disclaimer: I am NOT commenting on whether these profit-minded constructs (NDA, trade secrets, and soliciting the violation of 'em for a for-profit tattler website) are good or bad. Just noting some irony.

Oh, and journalists' ability to protect sources has few limitations (we're seeing one in the US headlines now, with two reporters facing jail time for refusing to reveal who violated national security by outing a CIA operative). This ain't one of 'em, and for good reason, since it'd be too easy for a large corporation to cast a chilling effect on whistleblowing by stringing together some chain-of-profit in court, then retaliate on the whistleblower once they were outed.

Re:Oh, so that's how it's done

[PCM2]

Um, aren't trade secrets and NDA's and all that pretty much all about greed, too?

Ummmm, no.

Shooting for a real-world example that has nothing to do with intellectual property here:

Business #1 is an automobile manufacturer. They come up with a new car that has an amazing paint job, one so awesome looking that everybody buys these cars, even though the engine could probably be improved a little bit.

Business #2 is an auto detailing shop. They send guys out into the field to find these new cars and use their keys to put huge scratches all along the length of them, so the owners will have no choice but to take their cars in to get repainted.

By your argument, both these business models are "about greed," because in both cases somebody's trying to make money. But any six year old can tell you which is the honest, fair-dealing businessman and which is just out to make a crooked buck.

Re:Oh, so that's how it's done

[unclethursday]

This ain't one of 'em, and for good reason, since it'd be too easy for a large corporation to cast a chilling effect on whistleblowing by stringing together some chain-of-profit in court, then retaliate on the whistleblower once they were outed.

Except there are laws to protect true whistleblowers. And, for the record, telling some rumor site detailed info on a soon to be released product that causes no harm to the general public or the government, does not count as whistleblowing.

Now, if the person had given information that Apple had installed backdoors into their OS to allow Apple to come into any OS X computer online, at will, and retreive any data or destroy any data on the target conputer at will, then that would be more along the lines of whistleblowing; since the knowledge that Apple could get into your computer at any time and muck around with your personal information would be a matter of public interest.

Now, if you can please explain how releasing trade secrets of an upcomming/possibly upcomming product that will not do harm to the general public in any way or will not cause harm to the government/national security in any way, I'd love to hear it.

As it stands, these cases do NOT fall under whistleblowing. They fall more under the term corporate espionage. If the Apple products would somehow have done harm to the general public or to the government and national security, then they would. But, they don't. And I would really like to hear your explanation as to how they do fall under whistleblowing.

Re:Oh, so that's how it's done

[Calibax]

we're seeing one in the US headlines now, with two reporters facing jail time for refusing to reveal who violated national security by outing a CIA operative

I honestly can't see why these two reporters are protecting their source. Supposedly, someone (or some people) wanted to settle a score with the operative's husband and decided that the best way was to ruin this lady's career. This was a criminal act under Section 421 of Title 50 of the United States Code (better known as the Intelligence Identities Protection Act) which is designed to protect the agent, the agent's contacts in the USA and in foreign countries, and prevent impairment of the country's national security efforts.

In short, these reporters were used to do someone's dirty work. They must have known this, but they still protect the person, possibly even to the extent of going to jail.

If I know that my friend is a spy and I tell anyone, I can go to prison for 10 years. But (by the reporters reasoning) if I tell a journalist, he can publish that information with impunity and doesn't even have to say where he got the information. Doesn't that seem wrong?

In any case, how does it serve the interests of the country to publish the name of a spy? The idea of shielding journalists is so that they are free to communicate freely and report on scandals that need to be exposed to public scrutiny. In this case, the sources that the reporters are protecting were not whistleblowers with knowledge of a scandal. Indeed, the sources ARE the scandal. They are not brave tellers of truth, determined to get a dastardly plot out in the public eye - they are nothing but craven scoundrels bent on settling a score. I would have thought that real journalists would hate being used in this fashion.

Wouldn't it serve the best interests of the press to expose these people rather than protect them?

Re:Oh, so that's how it's done

[ediron2]

The first one can also just publish how to make that amazing paint job. So, your example really is about intellectual property, in that sense.

He doesn't share ... out of a desire for profit. As I said, quite clearly, I wasn't interested in getting into the ethical aspects of the goodness/evilness of anyone so motivated. I was just saying that Apple's desire is profit, and the website's author was after fame or profit, too. And all the rest of us are willing to chase the newest story.

In my book, greed can be either ethical or not. And that ethical line can be shifted just by altering the story a bit. As long as both Apple and the writer desire to capitalize on something, they're going to disagree on what is ethical or right.

As for 'altering the story a bit', let's recast your example:

business 1 is a japanese auto manufacturer. They make the same so-so car with awesome paint, and they keep the process a secret.

business 2 is an american auto manufacturer. Yeah, I realize this is a quaint, 30-year-old business case, given multinationalization of all industrial processes. Seeing the downturn due to business 1's success, boss 2 resorts to industrial espionage to get the process. Some engineer at 1 hands him the info, and within a year, business 2 is able to regain the market lead, selling a car with a better engine and the nice paint job.

Customers win out, business 2 gets to keep his employees working, and business 1 has to improve his engines to compete. Any nationalists will also point out that doing so is a noble act for (god and) country. Meanwhile, another bloc of nationalists might be so upset as to demand a war.

How is industrial espionage in this case bad for disinterested consumers (by disinterested, I mean anyone that doesn't care who makes the car or etc... they just want the best car for their money), for the people at company 2, their shareholders, etc? And what if I feel that tolerating a mediocre engine is slightly more crooked, compared to resorting to bribing an engineer to rebalance the competitive scales?

Re:Oh, so that's how it's done

[ediron2]

Protecting sources has *few* limitations. Until the PlameGate stuff, I didn't realize there were any limits.

Corporate espionage isn't an exact fit, either, since that is usually intercorporate activity, designed to gain knowledge that could be used for a business/competitive purpose. Prerelease of new models has some of that, but there is so much consumer interest that it'd be unfair to say that the publication of the prerelease info was for competitors.

Releasing trade secrets, gained through an unnamed source, generally won't be whistleblowing. However, they're not a viable exception for the protections against court-compelled revealing of sources.

If the exception was created by the courts, it would have the negative impact
of creating a path for disclosing and retaliating against whistleblowers.

As with privacy and a zillion other common-to-slashdot discussions, any general concept needs to be distrusted if it allows abuses possible in special cases. The problem with forcing this guy to out his sources is there's nothing stopping some malicious company from using this precedent to create a string of circumstances that show how negative publicity (smoking studies, carcinogens in food, exploding tires, adverse reactions to a medication) hurt them.

As for whistleblowing law, if I stumbled across something truly evil, I doubt I'd be eager to put my ability to work on stuff I enjoy, my life, my kids, my family, and my financial future on the line directly when a careful leak to a reporter could start people investigating to find the evil on their own. That's how *little* I trust whistleblowing law. In fact, I'd sooner divorce my wife, disown my kids, and *then* go public. That is how little faith I have in little-guy-vs-corporation conflicts.

While current laws' superficial promise of protection, plus stronger protections in SarbOx and against federal abuse-of-funds are a good start, I've seen too few success stories and too many whistleblowers' lives ruined to trust the system. And protecting sources is a system that works, even if it allows bloggers to make a fast buck publishing insider info they bribed out of employees. It isn't that I consider this whistleblowing and retaliation against whistleblowing, it's that the law protects this, and if that is changed, it could impact anonymous sources when the stuff is good.

Like with free speech, it isn't enough to protect the obvious cases. You need to protect the marginal stuff you personally disagree with, too.

Now, if you can please explain how releasing trade secrets of an upcomming/possibly upcomming product that will not do harm to the general public in any way or will not cause harm to the government/national security in any way, I'd love to hear it.

I think you left out a word or two here, but I hope I answered your response.

Re:Oh, so that's how it's done

[ediron2]

Yeah, I tried to completely dodge this subtopic because I'm partisan, have a strong opinion on it, and didn't want to get into that side subject because it'd detract from my primary goal of pointing out that:

By allowing this sort of john-doe suit to reveal sources, we'd be subverting the legal protection a whistleblower gets against being retaliated against by being an anonymous source.

Given the value of anonymous sources, I disagree with anything that harms the practice.

Re:Oh, so that's how it's done

[arbitraryaardvark]

Calling himself a journalist doesn't make it so.
But keeping a journal does.
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Apple_v_Does/
Thought I'd repost the link to the docs in the case.

Re: BUT - where's the gain here?

[metlin]

Your analogy is flawed. You're working for a company and you have signed an NDA. No matter how big a fan you are, that does not give you the right to violate the agreements you've signed with your employer.

If Metallica's manager were to bring out the tunes and lyrics of albums Metallica hasn't even recorded yet, you might have a closer to the analogy.

This does not fall under the realm of IP law, rather under contract law. The guy violated an employer-employee contract no matter what. I think Apple would be setting a bad precedent if it did not drag them out into the public.

Ahahahaha!

[Chordonblue]

Working as an admin in a jr./high school this was enough to make my tea come out my nose...

Thanks!

Re: BUT - where's the gain here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple just did set that precedent.

(Given the timeframe, I kinda doubt it was an Apple employee anyway. Any number of third parties could have known about a machine that was already in production when the information came out.)

OT: Re:In Case of /. ing

[Samus]

You are worried about giving eweek a slashdotting? Thats like worrying about slashdotting NYT or news.com.com.com... or something. At least it makes it easy for the really lazy among us to not have to click the story link.

Re:OT: Re:In Case of /. ing

[dubiousmike]

Can you give me a summary of his post? I'm too lazy to read it too.

Odd case comparison..

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it odd that a US Federal investigation can't get information out of journalist on the releasing of CIA operatives names from the white house....
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst -nws-leak16 .html
Oddly the two reporters going to jail for not testifying when the reporter who published the story gets off scott free.

And yet Apple probably could get pretty far with this because corporations are protected more than our overseas operatives.

odd..

Apple rotten in the core.

[Stumbles]

As usual Apple is full of crap. Once you tell someone out side your organization, it's no longer a trade secret, NDA or not. If you fully intend to release this information for public consumption as they intend to do anyway then it is not a trade secret and it matters not the kind of BS spin Apple wants to put on it.

What the real skinny is some one violated their NDA.... that's all this is really about. Anything more is just smoke and mirrors.

More bang for your buck?

[Chrontius]

Disclaimer: I don't own a mac, but I do use an iPod.

Mhz is the least important measure of a chip, since by increasing it you decrease the number of CPU cycles that're carrying data.

A Seti@home/Folding@Home dataset (IIRC it was folding) that usually takes about twelve hours on a pc will finish in about two on a G5, back when they were single-processor -- the on-campus computer store was playing around with their display model.

Still, until Half-Life 2 is available Mac native, few will buy them.

When will companies learn?

[gearmonger]

It didn't help Palm back when they decided to issue cease-and-desist orders to websites/fansites with "Palm" in their name.

Pissing on your most ardent fans is pretty stupid -- when will companies figure this out?

If you don't want information to get out before you're ready, you have two options:
1. Get ready sooner.
2. Release lots of bogus information so nobody knows when the rumors are legit (personally, I think this strategy is both more fun and easier to do)

any actual evidence?

[justins]

Has Apple aired any actual evidence in court that there was an NDA breach? Somehow it seems that literally any one of thousands of low-wage workers in some foreign land could have sent word of a product before release.

If Apple hasn't shown that there must have been an NDA leak, and used some other methods to investigate the source of the leak, there's no way this guy should be compelled to reveal his source. They're just bullying him.

Re:any actual evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you shown any evidence that the worker who leaked the info wasn't under a NDA? This may come as a shock but NDAs aren't limited to high paying engineering positions at Apple's HQ. The factory workers have them too.

It is actually against the law to leak trade secrets you know were obtained through violations of contracts. The think secret guy can't reasonably claim he didn't know the info was coming from a NDA violation.

Re:any actual evidence?

[Doctor_Jest]

They don't have to. A product that is revealed before the release date by an employee of Apple could violate an NDA that they signed as a condition of employment. If their company policy (which I am sure is available somewhere) states that employees are not to disclose private company information before it is authorized to do so, then they have implicitly given evidence. The "reasonable man" test is easy here. Every company has some sort of NDA agreement with its employees. It's no "shock" that Apple would have one as well. A factory worker in China isn't likely to surf over to Thinksecret and give out some juicy details of the new miniature Mac he put the screws into the other day... That just doesn't seem likely.

Every email I get at my job that is internally generated has an NDA disclosure information text on it. Any company document I get that isn't for non-employee eyes is clearly marked "confidential." I can be fired for revealing it, and if it causes enough economic harm, I can be held liable for that harm. Not that I would ever leak any information. Some of it's REALLY silly stuff, but they put the stamp on it anyway. That's just how companies work I suppose.

ThinkSecret's "journalist" credentials are suspect here, and this situation is going to give anyone with a blog new bravado. It might not be what people who are defending TS are expecting, either. It might be better in the long run, but in the short term, it's going to be a mess until it's really sorted out.

*shrug*

Re:any actual evidence?

[justins]

They don't have to. A product that is revealed before the release date by an employee of Apple could violate an NDA that they signed as a condition of employment.

I could have a meth lab in my basement, too. It's an interesting hypothetical. It shouldn't give the government the power to invade my privacy.

Re:any actual evidence?

[justins]

This may come as a shock but NDAs aren't limited to high paying engineering positions at Apple's HQ. The factory workers have them too.

You know this... how? I'm sure you've travelled to all the third-world plants that Apple contracts out to, and you have an intimate knowledge of their logistical and shipment practices.

Re:any actual evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would one of these thousands of low-wage workers in a foreign land (who, presumably, are only assembling the devices) have known the exact prices?

While I don't approve of their methods, it does sound to me like high-level folks in Cupertino who leaked it.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT!

[Anonymous Coward]

And in other news, China tells Taiwan that it's free to go if it wants to, but will welcome back when it wants to return.

Iran dismantles the Moral Police and declares that they will defend, to the death, the State of Israel.

Columbia's FARC lay down their weapons and burn all their coca fields, delaring that "it was our bad, and we have a vigorous plan for rebuilding the country and replanting forest."

Re: BUT - where's the gain here?

[King_TJ]

Ok, as long as we're nitpicking analogies here, let's correct yours too.

This guy (supposedly, though is this even known yet?) working at Apple and violating said NDA doesn't seem to be some sort of upper-management type. Rather, he/she is probably just another average employee who happened to be part of a group working on one of these projects.

Therefore, it's not at all like "Metallica's manager" bringing out tunes and lyrics Metallica didn't even record yet. It's much more like some guy working at the record company, maybe in the shipping or marketing dept., leaking out a preview of some of the supposed new lyrics on a Metallica fan-club site.

If so, I once again say - despite it being technically illegal under contract law, I'm not sure I'd opt to pursue it. It's easy enough to turn a "blind eye" to it, realizing that it's more beneficial to let it go than to attack your own customer-base.

(In fact, it's arguable that Metallica already learned this lesson. They *did* raise a huge legal stink about their music being distributed as MP3s, and what became of it? Their next big album release was relative failure, and you now hear just as many people scoff at their name as rave about them being "metal gods" and what-not. Meanwhile, I'd say they stopped about 0% of the trafficing of their music over the net and gained practically nothing in "new sales" from their actions.)

Why?

[2nd Post!]

What does the First Amendment have to do with this case? I quote:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

How does this apply here?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

See here

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... I just followed that link and skimmed the whole document.

Nothing there about Congress establishing religion

Nothing about Congress prohibiting the free practice of religion

Nothing about Congress abridging freedom of speech

Nothing about Congress abridging freedom of the press

Nothing about Congress abridging the right to peaceably assemble

Nothing about Congress abridging the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances

Looks like this case has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment, unless Apple Computer has become a new branch of government.

Re:Why?

[Herbmaster]

I will make this real simple: The UTSA is a law, passed by congress. If the UTSA abridges the freedom of speech or of the press, it is unconstitutional. If the UTSA is unconstitutional, it is unenforcable. If the UTSA can't be enforced, Apple will be unsuccessful using it to sue people.

Re:Why?

[nacturation]

But why does this a freedom of speech issue? Think Secret and the other sites are free to say whatever they want. Nothing wrong with that. What if Apple simply wants to know who told it to them? In other words, "Keep on publishing whatever you want, we don't care... just tell us who told it to you because that person violated a contract and we'd like to pursue that matter with that particular individual."

Re:Why?

[Herbmaster]

But why does this a freedom of speech issue? Think Secret and the other sites are free to say whatever they want. Nothing wrong with that.

Actually, according to the UTSA, there is. This is why I believe the UTSA may be found unconstitutional.

What if Apple simply wants to know who told it to them? In other words, "Keep on publishing whatever you want, we don't care... just tell us who told it to you because that person violated a contract and we'd like to pursue that matter with that particular individual."

Well, we don't know this. Without a law suit, Think Secret owes Apple nothing. Apple can't just force them to provide answers. But since Apple is suing Think Secret, instead of simply subpoenaing them to testify and provide the identify of their sources, I don't think it is that simple... At least on the face of it - in reality I think they know they'll fail, but maybe they'll intimidate an answer out of Think Secret in the mean time. Regardless, if a publisher can be forced to reveal their sources, either by the government, by a company, or by a lawsuit by a company invoking a law such as the UTSA, that may abridge the freedom of the press. Why? Because "the freedom of the press" may be construed to mean the freedom of the press to collect data, conduct interviews, and publish their conclusions without being accountable to those who disagree with the content of their work. Now, obviously the first amendment doesn't spell this out the way I have, but it's up to the judicial branch and ultimately the supreme court - not congress - to decide what "freedom of the press" entails.

Re:In Case of /. ing

[Anonymous Coward]

This article was covered in better detail here. I think it's important we step back and consider the political consequences of this action. If the government decides to pursue a corporate-friendly agenda then what does that leave for the common citizens? This administration has already shown that it is willing to put the rights of corporations (RIAA, MPAA, Apple, etc) over those of the individual. How much longer are we going to stand around while this administration continues to whittle away the rights of HUMAN BEINGS while expanding the powers of entities that aren't even alive?

Why not?

[2nd Post!]

Imagine if someone had leaked the iPod, iPod mini, iTunes Music Store, or iPod Shuffle N months ahead, enough time for a competitor like Sony, Creative, Dell, etc, to release something to deflate their announcement.

Why, then, does the existence of such a product or development not rank as highly as Coke's formula?

If Pepsi could make Coke, that would shatter Coke's hold on the market.

If Creative made iPods, wouldn't that similarly destroy Apple's position in music players?

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we aren't talking about N Months, we are talking about 1 week. Also, Apple would have to argue that it was damaged somehow by the release, and given the enormously successful Mini launch, they weren't.

Re:Why not?

[Golias]

The patent on Coke's recipe is long gone, and anybody can easily reverse-engineer (for lack of a better term) the formula.

The main difference between Coke and Pepsi is the source of citrus (which you might not have realized is an important ingredient in cola.)

Coke uses mainly lemon for citrus flavor, Pepsi uses mainly lime. That's why Coke is a little tangier, and Pepsi is a little sweeter.

Otherwise they are both mostly mixtures of carbonated water, sugar, caffine, caramel color, and tiny amounts of a few other ingredients.

Anybody could make an identical copy of Coke... but how would you ever bring it to market? People have learned not to trust generic or off-brand "Cola", because they've experienced so many really horrible alternatives over the decades.

I believe the First Amendment doesn't apply here

[2nd Post!]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Where does it say anything that applies here? Has Apple moved Congress to pass laws that make it illegal to publish rumors online? To make it illegal for fansites to exist?

Better yet, have you heard of the UTSA, Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which I believe applies here?

Where the existence of Apple's products being announced too early harms it in two ways:

Stalls sales of existing products as people await new products
Gives competing companies an unnecessary advantage in the market

All we have to do is imagine this: ThinkSecret publishes that Apple, in May, will make all iPods with color screens and photo capabilities, drop the price by $100, and increase storage one step.

If this is believed widely, then why would people, with a choice, buy an iPod until May, when they could save $100, get extra storage, get color, and free photo abilities?

Then imagine this: ThinkSecret publishes the existence of a new product, called the iPod mini, which is half the size of the iPod and uses a 1" hard drive, four months before it's announced by Apple, and someone at Creative and someone at Sony read this and think, "Hey, we can do this!" and releases their product two weeks before Apple announces.

So tell me, why does the First Amendment apply, and why doesn't the UTSA apply in a situation like this?

Of course it's about the NDA

[2nd Post!]

But why do you think trade secret doesn't apply here?

If TS had published info and specs about the iPod mini four months in advance and Creative, Sony, and Dell all released similar products two weeks in advance, why don't you think that would qualify as a 'trade secret'?

It's a secret of the craft, the art of product design and manufacturing, because until it has been released, no one has done it before.

The same with the first iPod; no one had released something as small, as fast, or as usable, so it literally was unique.

Why, if Pepsi got Coke's secret formula and could manufacture Coke, and Creative obtained Apple's "secret formula" and could manufacture iPod minis, doesn't the similarities suggest that product information qualifies for trade secret status?

Of course it helps Apple that it's competition are all lame; years after the release of the iPod and mini, no competitor has yet figured out how to duplicate the "secret sauce" even though it's open and available to the public!

(Hint: Freely available Jukebox that doesn't suck. Simpler designs, less is more. Connect the two)

Creative has almost got the design right: Their new Zen Micros have a supremely clean design, but there's no software to download; I can't play with their music manager before I can buy a Zen, so I can't evaluate how the music organization works. Even worse, I know there exists software call NotMad to replace Creative's own software. That's how much they suck.

The same with the Archos Jukebox, in which someone has implemented their own firmware, called RockBox, to fix the deficiencies in the product!

It also ruins "exclusives" for big magazines

[bubba451]

Apple gets much better free publicity when the scoop comes via the cover of Time magazine, and that's something that Time is only interested in if they have the exclusive.

Re:It also ruins "exclusives" for big magazines

[Anonymous Coward]

And leak it on their Canadian website 12 hours early....

Re:I believe the First Amendment doesn't apply her

[Lord Kano]

If this is believed widely, then why would people, with a choice, buy an iPod until May, when they could save $100, get extra storage, get color, and free photo abilities?

Non issue. Especially since we're dealing with a RUMOR site. People know that rumors are just that.

What you're saying is that this rumor site is trying to help people get a better deal, and that it shouldn't be allowed.

Then imagine this: ThinkSecret publishes the existence of a new product, called the iPod mini, which is half the size of the iPod and uses a 1" hard drive, four months before it's announced by Apple, and someone at Creative and someone at Sony read this and think, "Hey, we can do this!" and releases their product two weeks before Apple announces.

It's Apple's responsibility to keep their secrets inside of Apple. Be it by using confidentiality agreements, or outright payoffs. If someone violates a confidentiality agreement, Apple is free to make a civil claim for damages. But they don't have the right to use the force of the government to silence any press outlet. Had Nixon claimed that the Watergate break in was a trade secret should he have been able to force Woodward and Berstein to keep quiet?

So tell me, why does the First Amendment apply, and why doesn't the UTSA apply in a situation like this?

Because the Constitution is higher in authority than the USC.

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Congress, and the states by extension, have no ability to legislate the press.

It would be a violation of the Constitution for the UTSA to be used to silence any press outlet.

LK

Re:I believe the First Amendment doesn't apply her

[2nd Post!]

I'm not disagreeing with anything except your initial assumption, which I ask you to explain.

How is Apple using Congress/the states to legislate the press? They aren't moving to silence anyone (except through bankruptcy if they hold that Nick somehow pay them damages for harm).

This very article we're talking about? It's about Apple subpoenas, which by definition is, "A command to a witness to appear and give testimony. "

How is that SILENCING? Apple's actions aren't to silence these folk, but to force them to talk. So if anything, Apple is violating their 4th Amendment Rights, because Apple tried to circumnavigate them by appealing to their ISPs to get their private emails!

If wishes were fishes...

[phaln]

We'd never go hungry.

I'm curious to see how Apple's stock will react after the split though. It can't go up forever.

I bought a macmini 'cause of thinksecret/macrumors

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a thought, my first mac is a mac mini. I bought it because of the insane hype everyone put on thinksecret and macrumors. Although I like the mini, I wish I could find one freakin usb wireless adapter that will work on this thing! Why are there no drivers out there for a mac!!!!!!

I REALLY REALLY regret not having the airport/bluetooth option installed... seriously...

Will they now also rein in their marketing legions

[Anonymous Coward]

They have been riding their brainwashing marketing campaign with constant troll created buzz for so long now that most everyone is saturated and secretly hates Apple and everything that they do seeing them as the ulitimate in poser pretender marketing charletons who really don't care about anything but their options and are racked with secret liberal guilt meanwhile while they keep chewing those little 80 milligram pills.

So I hope that they reform and sell due to good products and not due to good brainwashing.

Only then will I not rave against them ceaselessly in my silence and indifference to their success in the area of being money mongering poser marketeers.

Astoundingly Inaccurate

[smart2000]

The article, along with most of the responses and "facts" are astoundingly inaccurate. I should know, I'm the person who was served the subpoenas. They have already been served (as in, they are in my hot little hands). What has been stayed is the production. "Stayed" is a $5 lawyer word for delayed. In this case delayed while the EFF and Apple work out their differences between themselves or in front of a judge. If the EFF is successful in quashing (another $5 word) the subpoena, then Apple will get nothing.

Please keep in mind that the entire linked article is based on spin from a policy analyst for the EFF. Also contrary to what was reported in MacWorld and in the documents filed by the EFF, no email has been turned over to Apple.

Umm...

[Sheepdot]

In a previous comment, someone postulated the idea that Apple did the lawsuits soley to drum up media buzz and would probably drop them altogether right after MacWorld.

I would tend to think that in light of recent events, that poster was dead-on accurate.

Doubt it's for PR/image reasons

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Apple probably figured out that dragging people into court usually does little for one's popularity.

Doubt it. Your average person, and the average Mac user probably hasn't even heard about this.

People here oftern blab on about how doing X is going to affect the company's image. But the truth is, only a small group of people even read or follow these kinds of things.

Re:Doubt it's for PR/image reasons

[HuguesT]

You don't need 100% of people to tune into these debates to make a difference.

Indeed even if a small or even tiny proportion register their displeasure with Apple in one way or another, they will take notice.

There are many reasons for this. If sufficiently many people protest it is an indicator that Apple's original policy was perhaps morally wrong, and they didn't realize it at first. In concrete terms it means that if thing turn really sour and they find themselves in a court of law in front of a jury, they are not unlikely to lose, because a jury is always involved and will tune into the same emotional issues that the protesters do.

Also even a small band of protestors can have a really noticeable effect on the bottom line. If sufficiently many people decide to hold off on Apple's purchases even only for a few weeks this will get noticed and the shareholders may ask questions. Apple's market share is not so huge that they can get away with things like that.

Examples of PR disasters in recent years following
unwise court actions are the {MP,RI}AA and MacDonald's. Perhaps you've seen the documentary "McLibel"? If not research it. These companies are still alive and relatively well because they are huge, but have lost a lot of their image.

Apple's image as an independent free-thinking company doesn't gel with this court action. They had to stop.

Re: BUT - where's the gain here?

[jargoone]

As long as we're nitpicking analogies, let's nitpick analogies as a whole. Trying to convey a point with analogies is just stupid. You can never come up with an analogy that has the same set of conditions as your point. Just stick to the facts and it's much simpler.

Apple as a company sucks... It's products don't...

[tliet]

Apple as a company has always sucked huge donkeyballs. I remember the late 80's and early 90's when they were still riding high on the high margins of the Macintosh. The arrogance of the company was almost unbearable. From the outside they seem humbler these days but my friends who still have to work with them the culture inside Apple is still very much the same.

Apple, great products but the company sucks. See this website for another example of Apple's actions.

http://tellonapple.org/

Bah.

[Aldric]

I'm still buying an iRiver player over an iPod. I find Steve Jobs extremely distasteful in general recently - he seems to have some sort of God complex way out of proportion to Apple's market share.

Re:Bah.

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

Whatever, dude! Go crazy. Last time I checked, Apple had over 70% market share in digital audio players. And, since you're squawking about digital audio players, I fail to see what the importance of Apple's computer market share has to your rant.

OK, then

[Anonymous Coward]

when you get a source that divulges information that is protected with an NDA, you can shop them.

What *you* want is up to you.

By, um, using the power of the court?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple can say "OI tell us who the rat was". When they say "OI, Judge, MAKE them tell us", they are using the government.

Otherwise a corporation is a superbeing:

1) More money than any single human
2) Lives longer than a human
3) Has more protection against breaking the law than any human
4) Has more protection from the law than any human
5) Has more power over another human than even the government

point 5 is because of 1,3, and 4 plus your belief that only the government is enjoined from any form of coercion against free speech.

But you just agreed with him

[Anonymous Coward]

you said "could violate an NDA". Not that is "must have".

So, can Apple prove that the only people with the information were under NDA?

Maybe Jobs got a bit pissed and was chating to some mates about the cool stuff Apple does and their mate then tells another friend who does not know that the information is confidential. Will Jobs sack himself as the originator of the leak?

A little peom I wrote just for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

their

not there

their

dumbass

LOL Apple Played Us All for Chumps

[salesgeek]

Apple dropped the plan to sue people because they got more than their money's worth of free promotion out of this. I think I'm going to try this model next time my company come out with something:

1. Create a really cool artsy product that works well.
2. Leak it to bloggers...
3. Wait for buzz to begin.
4. Threaten to sue bloggers to get major links from media outlets to bloggers.
5. Get some DCMA takedowns done and get more major press coverage. Links are now 1/2 gone so people really want to be in the know.
6. Release new product... PROFITs are 40% higher because of incredile reach of message.
6. Drop the matter entirely and make friends out of the Slashdot crowd. "Apple finally got it they are good people"

Popularity

[sepluv]

Apple probably figured out that dragging people into court usually does little for one's popularity.

Do they have any of that?

Seriously they are even more proprietary and evil than Microsoft (and cost more and have an even worse UI and better customer lock-in), and they have evil bad-quality expensive proprietary hardware too (on top of the software) which is actually worse.

Re:Popularity

[sepluv]

Flamebait? Oh...sorry, I remember now; I'm not allowed to criticise anyone but Microsoft here am I because its not l33t. (Micr0$h4ft is 500 t074lY €V1L--there, will this get me modded up now.)

Even though Apple is worse from a user freedom point of view. Oh, sorry I'm not allowed to talk about freedom here either, am I, lest I get modded down, called a gnu and a hippie and informed that I don't wash.

Re:Popularity

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

"Seriously they are even more proprietary and evil than Microsoft (and cost more and have an even worse UI and better customer lock-in), and they have evil bad-quality expensive proprietary hardware too (on top of the software) which is actually worse."

Whatever, nimrod. Your ignorance is showing. It is quite obvious you know nothing about Macintosh computers, so what possesses you to even try to debate their merits.

Re:Popularity

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

You're allowed to criticize whatever you want, but, in your case, doing so only magnifies your ignorance.

Remember, it helps to know what you are talking about before attempting to talk about it.

Re:Popularity

[sepluv]

doing so only magnifies your ignorance. Remember, it helps to know what you are talking about before attempting to talk about it.

I've used (or tried using) Macs many times--in fact, I used one this week briefly. I've looked at how much they cost. I know about the history of Apple and their crusades against freedom (e.g.: recent case with EFF).

They produce an expensive, badly designed (although the design was actually quite good in its early days), proprietary (except Darwin) OS on expensive, badly-designed, proprietary hardware.

Instead of using ad hominem arguments against me, tell me what is wrong with my arguments and conclusions. Try comparing it with GNU/Linux on an Intel/IBM-compatible PC.

Re:Popularity

[xenoandroid]

Actually OS X's UI is the best one I've ever used. The only extra things I have on it are quicksilver (sort of like the equivalent of the windows run command) and Synergy so I can control my music without even looking at iTunes.

Apple may have proprietary elements but they are just as flexible when it comes to open formats and interacting with other platforms (unlike Microsoft).

As for customer lock-in, yeah you're locked in more because of the hardware (though you can still install linux on it), but since my mac is a laptop and laptops of any brand are usually not very mod-able it's not an issue for me. If you decide to switch platforms again, many companies (like Adobe I hear) will gladly let you trade in your current installer disc for another of a different platform for a small fee.

Apple's hardware is actually quite good and really isn't all that expensive. Their lowest end GPUs are at the very least, mid-class and game worthy. You generally don't buy Apple's RAM (even their tech support people have been known to say buy from somewhere else), and you surely can't be bitching about Apple not having 4Ghz CPUs, anybody posting here should know enough about CPU architecture to know that the clock speed is only one of many factors that determine how well a CPU will perform.

So exactly how is Apple not only as bad as Microsoft but "worse"?

I don't see Apple refusing to let their OS read and write any other file system besides their own or not allowing other OSes to write to their file systems. I don't see them making efforts to make their version of an office suite incompatible with everything else. At least as a mac user you have Apple, the Open Source community, and the Mac community willing to work on solutions to make user experience better. With Microsoft you really don't see as much of an effort to make computers more enjoyable to use.

"Locked-in" I may be but I've never reached a level of frustration with my mac that I ended up hitting it (Can't say the same for my machine running windows).

Re:Popularity

[sepluv]

I accept your points, but they're all against Microsoft Windows (which I don't use if I can help it). I hate to say this, but one thing I can say is that, on the times I've used MacOS, it has also been less stable than even MSW.

Regarding MS, we can give example after example, comparing the two copmany's evilness (but I'm going off-line now), but basically they're as bad as each other--except that Apple's business model is, at least fundametally, potentially worse than MS's because of the better lock-in and proprietary hardware.

Re:Popularity

[Anonymous Coward]

Way not not even come close to actually refuting his comment and resort to flailing arms and name calling instead.

If anything, you proved his point.

Re:Popularity

[BandwidthHog]

Seriously they are even more proprietary and evil than Microsoft

More evil? On what do you base that one? Of course, how could one prove or refute such a subjective claim?

But more proprietary is a bit easier to approach. If you mean more proprietary from a developer's point of view, I disagree but am not knowledgeable enough to argue amongst actual programmers. From the user's perspective, that one's easy to shoot down. I encounter very little of the roach-motel syndrome where my data checks in and doesn't check out. Most of that is through the use of either open or non-obfuscated file formats. Compare Mail.app to Outlook.exe, or .plist config files to the Registry, etc. You can also look at it from the perspective of migrating from one Mac box to another versus a similar Windows-Windows transition. I can move software installations and crucial directory structures reliably and without arcane knowledge or tools.

and cost more

Well that one's pretty tough to do a direct comparison of, since while there is considerable overlap, they really do operate in two different market spaces. But the whole "Macs cost more than Wintel" canard is just that. Once you start comparing comprable machines, and not putting a dual G5 workstation up against one of those loss leader Dells with an underclocked Celeron, shared RAM and a motherboard made from recycled Mountain Dew bottle caps, the Mac comes out within a few percentage points either way, and that's before you factor in the longer service life or higher resale value.

even worse UI

Heh. Yeah, well. Most experts disagree, and most laypersons disagree, but once you eliminate those two groups, yeah, I suppose it's a tossup.

better customer lock-in

See roach motel above.

evil bad-quality expensive proprietary hardware

Umm, which manufacturer has better quality hardware than Apple? They've had some notoriously bad machines, mostly from the Gil Amelio era (affectionately known as Road Apples) such as the 6200, the PowerBook 5300 with the Thermonuclear Batteries, and a few others that I'm undoubtedly forgetting, but generally speaking Macs have a service life of ten years or more.

Yeah, IHBT, and I will now proceed to HAND. Serves me right for using that damned "see context" link to make sure you really deserved that -1, Flamebait mod. You may now resume trolling the Mac zealots.

Re:Popularity

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say this, but one thing I can say is that, on the times I've used MacOS, it has also been less stable than even MSW.

I hate to say it, but just like under Windows, an administrator on either system can make them unstable.

Discounting problems like bum RAM which will destroy either system to hell, ultimately the stability of a system will come down to two things:

1) The hardware in the system, and the drivers which come along with it
2) The software installed on the system

#2 can kill either system dead, no doubt about it. Put a poorly written .ISO CD emulation driver into XP and it will blue screen like clockwork. Similar things can destroy OSX. Administrators should know better, but of course, rarely do because lusers want to install, install, install, and don't think twice about the possibility of blowing their system to hell. Bad installation of OSX = bad experience for you. However, unlike XP, it's easy to make lusers run in user-only mode and - holy crap - everything, everywhere, will work just fine. Run XP in regular user mode and suddenly the wide swath of apps that expect to be able to write to C:\Program Files will break, and let's not even mention the poorly written crap that expects to be able to write to C:\WINDOWS. OSX's security model requires a user to authorize with an administrator username & password before an application can muck with equivalent spots.

#1 is the really interesting wrinkle though. Apple controls the system hardware. Therefore Apple controls the drivers that run the system. Driver stability is paramount to system stability. Therefore without the overwhelming number of drivers written in third world countries like in Windows, the stability can be much greater. Of course, as you add third party hardware into the mix, you can destroy that, which is why knowledgeable Apple owners don't "save" $.50 buying "comparable" hardware from faceless websites because they'll spend hours diagnosing system instability that'll be traced back to lousy third party drivers. In addition, every driver on the motherboard is essentially written by Apple and maintained by Apple - instead of updating an Intel-written driver for your motherboard ENET/WLAN controller, a CMI-written driver for your motherboard audio, etc., etc. - you just have Apple making sure their drivers all work with each other, instead of third parties subsidizing third world development and hoping it all basically works when installed across the myriad of components that driver must support, even though each individual component shipped on your motherboard.

Re:Popularity

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother? It's much more fun to insinuate about all the relatives you've had sexual relations with.

I mean, she's your mother, for god's sake...

a counter point.

[cenonce]

The public seems to think that journalists get some extra First Amendment protection above and beyond everybody else. Actually, they do not. Journalists must use the same means as everyone else in obtaining their information. They do not get a "journalist" exception to breaking the law to get the information or publishing it.

It is easy for people (including the EFF) to jump behind the banner of "free speech" especially when the Plaintiff is a big corporation. But free speech is not an absolute right. It does not permit the public (including journalists) from inciting violence, publishing defamatory material or committing fraud to obtain and publish private information.

And let's note: this is really about stealing private information. If ThinkSecret, etc. had gotten this information through legal means, even a slip of the tongue by an Apple employee, that is something that can and should be protected by journalist privilege. But to induce, bribe or perform other illegal acts to obtain the information, especially information that is well-known in the industry to be considered "trade secrets", is criminal. I just don't think that there should be an exception for that behavior simply because your a journalist.

Apple Wants Sales, Not Popularity

[reallocate]

Only a tiny percentage of Apple's market is aware of these lawsuits, so it is unlikely that Apple is motivated by a desire to maintain its popularity with that little band of geeks and fanatics.

Apple brought the suits in pursuit of a business objective, and if/when it withdraws the suits, that will also be in pursuit of a business objective.

I really doubt Apple is worried about the few people who would not buy an Apple product simply because they don't like how it does business.

Re:Apple Wants Sales, Not Popularity

[adzoox]

Exactly ...

How many people base their decisions on how much they actually like the company?

Very few if any Coca Cola collectors refuse Pepsi if its the only soft drink choice.

Also, about a year back there was a guy in the Mac Community named Jack Campbell - he had the worst reputation in all that was Mac. Now, he runs a multi million dollar business. Nobody seems to care about his reputation when buying from him.

Re:My take...

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

I guess we could say the same about LinSux and Windblows fanatics as well.

You Can Have One, Too!

[Anonymous Coward]

You Can Have One, Too!

horseshit

[Ender Ryan]

Combine that with an implementation of Unix that wipes the floor with Linux and BSD for security, stability

Bullshit on all counts. Apple is far slower to release fixes for THE SAME SOFTWARE as Linux distros and the BSDs are. I'm talking Samba, OpenSSH, etc. Stability is a matter of decent hardware for all OSes in question here, but Apple's desktop is much newer and arguably less stable at this point.

And lastly, OpenBSD is arguably the most secure operating system for personal computers that exists and is in common usage today. The others don't hold a candle to it. 1 remote hole in 6 years, OS X isn't even that old and already boasts more than 1 remote exploit in that time.

It Went Around, It Came Around

[Nom du Keyboard]

Apple once used satire to rail against a 1984 type society.

Now they do their best to bring it about.

totally botched?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck do you know about "botched", troll? It worked so well they upgraded to XServes.

Re:Snort

[Stanistani]

>Buyer Beware (or what ever the legal Latin term is)

That would be "Cum Grano Salis"

Suggestion for Apple

[inkswamp]

If Apple really wanted to hit these rumor sites where they hurt, they could take the money they're wasting with these lawsuits and hire some people to spread false rumors, leak faked images, send out wrong info, etc. Nothing does more damage to a rumors site that posting something that turns out to be BS. SpyMac completely bailed out of the rumors business after they posted all that bunk about the iWalk.

Re:Thank goodness!!

[millennial]

You know, I never imagined that "-1, Funny" was actually possible. Kudos.