Woz, Others Ask Apple To Go Easy On Tiger Leak
tabkey12 writes "Drunkenbatman posts this impressive article with a pointed quote from Apple co-creator Steve Wozniak and 24 others from all parts of the Apple Software world, criticising Apple's stance against a 23-year-old pre-med student, desicanuk, who distributed a pre-release Tiger build over a popular Mac Bittorrent site. There's also an interview with desicanuk on drunkenbatman's site. (Original Slashdot article here.)"
I don't know about all of them, but Unsanity is one of the most well-known Mac software companies out there. Delicious Monster is pretty well-known too, although their fame is rather recent and it remains to be seen if it'll last. People must take names like these pretty seriously, because the companies seem to be doing reasonably well.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
What? Apple had $213 million in 1Q05 in software sales, and estimates $1 billion in software revenues for this year. And you think Apple doesn't really sell software??
I never knew that Jobs was such an ass. Egomaniac? Sure! Asshole? it seems so.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you get your legal advice on slashdot, your psychiatric problems are more serious than your legal ones.
That has *absolutely* nothing to to with the state.
The bankruptcy code definces certain types of debts that are not dischargeable in bankruptcy, including debts for
1) support payments
2) recent taxes
3) intentionally caused harm
4) fraud
5) student loans for several years
and many others
Liability for disclosing the information in this case would be far-fetched. *HOWEVER*, if he "induced" the employee to break the NSA, that could be the tort of interference with contract, and could come under the intentionally caused harm category.
hawk, esq.
That phrasing should be for the macrumors litigation, not this one.
Uploading it to share it would certainly be an intentional copyright violation, no matter how many he expected to download it (1 or 1,000,000). It's not the general liability, however, that would be nondischargeable. It's the intent to cause the harm that matters.
hawk, esq.