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....
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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.
Working as an admin in a jr./high school this was enough to make my tea come out my nose...
Thanks!
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
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
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.
To purchase it is not like spending money but rather it is an investment in the future in a blow against the empire
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.