Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
"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....
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
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":
... and hence the creators of the journal are called 'journalists'"
"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'
"...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?
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.
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.
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.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
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.)
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!
GPL Deconstructed
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.
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
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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/
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.
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.
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.
I'm not a smorgasbord.