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

[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.

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....

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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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!