Slashdot Mirror
Apple Fails Due Diligence in Trade Secret Case
Brett writes "Despite claims to the contrary, it now appears that Apple didn't do any serious investigation inside the
company before they sued AppleInsider and the PowerPage. This is quite a bit of a problem because Californian law and First Amendment precedent requires Apple check up on itself
before threatening journalists. From the article, "It appears that Apple has adopted a shoot-first, ask questions later approach to dealing with rumors sites. The company took no
depositions, required no oaths from its employees, and failed to subpoena anyone related to the company or the development of the device in question.""
Ummm...Oracle?
I think what this means is that even though apple make better software, they aren't diligent enough to protect their assets
This means when it comes down to it, they may be damaging their own claims of copyright and trademark over OS X.
What could happen as I see it is Microsoft or some other company could now release "OS X Tiger" and apple wouldn't have as much recourse as they had before.
I wouldn't be surprised if it meant pirating apple software now doesn't carry as much legal risk either. After all, who are they going to sue? they need to check themselves out first, and that will take time.
Win some, lose most of them...
Hahaha, only on Slashdot could a story with no relevance whatsoever to Microsoft result in a comment like this being marked Insightful.
What "insight" into the article does this comment convey? "shoot first ask questions later" operating system design? Please. It might well be true, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Apple's heavy-handedness in this situation.
Game dev and music blog
Oh god, Here come the apple users. "It's ok if Apple infringes on peoples rights. It's Apple! Yay!"
Give me a break.
No need to guess. No doubt about it. Microsoft.
What fantasy world are you living in? How long did it take Apple to write a better os (if you can call it that)? And they had to steal from the free software people to do it. Don't get me wrong Apple makes a decent (re pretty looking) desktop, but they are not the better alternative to anything out there.
I still don't get why people are so enamored with Apple. For every piece of FUD Microsoft spews, Apple tosses out a lawsuit.
People forget that Apple sued Microsoft to keep non Apple GUIS off the market. If they had their way, everything would be text mode or Apple. No Windows, no X, no nothing. The only up shot to this I can think of is we'd have been spared the silly KDE vs GNOME battles. OF course that's because if Apple had their way, neither would exist.
They're no better than Microsoft, SUN or even SCO, but because they're considered an underdog in the hardware and OS wars, shenanigans like this are given a free pass.
What gives?
We're talking about a company who took until version TEN to have a decent OS, and still ships their laptops with one frigging mouse button, even though they cram as much functionality into the alternate mouse buttons as any Windows developer.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
But does it make them any different from an ethical point of view? We trash MS a lot for tossing its weight around with trademarks and filing for silly patents, but here we have a direct competitor who blindly fires off an illegitimate lawsuit against free speech journalism. In essense, wasn't Apple just trying to throw its weight around as well just like MS would do?
Not to sound like a fanboy, but this what is attractive about Linux. There's no organization, good or bad, that I'm directly supporting by using it as my computer OS. Trust me, I think Tiger might be the best user-centric OS by miles, but Apple as the market leader would frighten me just as much as MS as the market leader and as such, I don't buy their products.
The summary is very conclusive that Apple failed to do something required by law. Though from TFA:
"The First Amendment requires that compelled disclosure from journalists be a last resort," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "Apple must first investigate its own house before seeking to disturb the freedom of the press."
Is the only source of this information in the summary this quote from an attorney working against Apple? If so, something stated by an opposing attoreny in the middle of a case shouldn't be taken as settled fact.
I'm a big tall mofo.
The article is not based on any decision made by a judge, it is based on what the opposing lawyers say. It is not even based on the _opinion_ of the opposing lawyers (which they might be very wise to keep to themselves), but on their interpretation that is most helpful to their clients.
It would be interesting to see what Apple's lawyers think about it. Maybe, just maybe, they have a slightly different point of few. Maybe they don't quite agree that the victim of a crime has to shoulder all the cost and hardship of the investigation.
who is in charge.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Here is a comprehensive summary of the case at EFF's site. The coverage has obvious bias, but informative nonetheless.
95% of all sigs are made up.
They don't wanna lose their jobs,
"Of fucking course I didn't tell Apple Insider anything".
The mole may not even have known about a deliberate leak, similar to earlier this morning reading about Yahoo mail updates - this was 1st posted:
I saw the new interface when my cousin, who works for yahoo was visiting
liqbase
Way to go Apple, you ass hats.
When the story first broke that apple was sueing rumor sites I withheld judgement, you see I run a review site, I understand the dynamics of the tech industry and the vital role of a journalist, I also understand the letters NDA, and what they mean to a company, and what they mean to me when I sign one. I do feel that as a journalist I have protections given to me by the US constitution protecting me and everyone for that matter from persecution and prosocution as a result of what I write.
That being said it also needs to be aknowlaged that there have to be some checks and balances in the system that allow companies to protect information that if released early could damage the company. We need to recognize that we do have great freedoms and powers in the press but that we need to make sure we use those powers and freedoms responsibly, for example not outing a CIA agent that isn't doing anything more then her job, that isn't say stealing from the Repbulican National Convention headquarters, but is making our country a safer place. You know that thing we refer to as common sense.
We as a society also need to infer and compel in to people that when they make a resonable agreement with someone be it a company or other individual or institution, they need to be held to that agreement, meaning if employee's of apple did disclose information about an upcomming product and had signed an NDA, and the upcomming product was not part of a large and publicly damaging scandal they had no right to reveal that information to a third party, and thusly the third party doesn't have the right (even under freedom of the press / speech) to reveal that information to the public.
What?
What the hell part of this was meant to make sense?
Apple suddenly can have their software pirated due to the result of a legal case in a completely different arena of the law?
What the fuck are you talking about?
Indeed what on earth was the grand parent talking about?
Granted the OS is pretty, but we're comparing ancient to modern, compare Vista to Leopard (or whatever it will be called) for a fair comparison.
Compare Apple's Office products to MS', who makes the better software?
Not that apple shouldn't have done checks at home, but given the fact that most employees are aware that they can be easily monitored under company premises (especially when working on a secretive stuff), most of such sources would typically NOT use company resources, so it doesn't make much sense to search them.
Instead ask the "journalist" himself.
Again, Apple SHOULD have done checks at home, just to be on the safe side of law at least.
does this mean AsSeenOnTV will start posting glowing reports of OS X's Spotlight "technology" on Slashdot again?
He seemed to go off on a very long vacation, last I heard from him...
I hope no one counter-sues; it'd be a shame if Apple were to end up in prison, married to the the guy with the most cigarettes.
Apple did introduce a great product in Ipod, proving that usability and industrial design can help corner a market. And the tie in to itunes was an excellent idea from the perspective of locking in a market. Furthermore the inability of ipod to understand any DRM other than Fairplay means taht any musician who wants to sell music and have it be portable while having DRM must sell via itunes. These are all great ways to sell a product, and "bring portable music to the masses."
History is full of great but evil inventors. For example, the inventor of the process that enables nitrgen rich fertilizers which saves countless lives also designed and took pleasure in designing German poison gas weapons.
I am not comparing Apple to that in any remote sense, but I am making the point that just because someone brings forth innovation to the world doesnt mean they get a free pass trampling rights.
Apple just wanted rumor sites to be afraid, so that they don't spoil Apples announcement to Intel-procsessors.
/. was one part of that ploy also -> Apple wanted to give rumor mill an extra spin of their own just to get focus off the upcomig and very major Intel-switch.
Think about what it would have done with PPC-Mac sales, if rumors about Intel had been wild long before WWDC... No-one would have bought PPC-machine, if there were rumors that Intel-switch was coming this summer.
Oh, and that Apple employee called "As Seen On TV" here at
And don't get me started to point out that Apple prolly leaked the Intel-info to WSJ and Cnet, so that Steve could show that "It's True"-slide in his presentation...
Think about that. Think different, indeed.
So the EFF is bad now?
We don't even want to know about the details. We forgive them anyway. But deep down inside we know that they are not really at fault or it was just an honest mistake. And I'm almost sure MS has something to do with this.
And to be honest, the amounts of money being demanded for use of the trademark (in Australia) are small change to the companies involved.
Would you like to see Micro$oft release a software product called Linux, just because Linus didn't retain the trademark on his own product?
http://www.ilaw.com.au/linuxfaq.html/ explains it a bit.
It seems like Linus (or his lawyers rather) want to protect the Linux trademark. Hypthetically speaking, if I had a product titled Lunix Utilities, I wouldn't seem to fall under that trademark use. However, if my company or product name was MikeRoweSoft or Lindows, Microsoft could and would sue me.
*Shrug* It's a pretty hairy issue. I see where Linus or his lawyers are coming from, but I wonder why the demand in monetary payment in order to ensure their trademark isn't abused.
Actually, under Linus's agreement Microsoft can release a software product called Linux.
>Would you like to see Micro$oft release a software product called Linux?
YES YES YES! I would love to see that.
IANAL, but I would've thought that the court/judge should have verified that Apple "thoroughly" investigated it's staff in-house, before violating the journalist's freedoms. After all, if any one could just show up in court and say: "Looky here judge, it's like i say it is, y'hear?" then there wouldn't be much of a judicial process, would there... But please correct me if i'm wrong...
That there weren't software patents back then. Windows wouldn't exist, or if it did a hefty fee would be paid to Apple for every license.
Oh wait patents foster innovation. Right....
Maybe they don't quite agree that the victim of a crime has to shoulder all the cost and hardship of the investigation.
This is not a criminal lawsuit. This is a civil case.
From Wikipedia:
In civil law cases, the "burden of proof" requires the plaintiff to convince the trier of fact (whether judge or jury) of the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief sought. This means that the plaintiff must prove each element of the claim, or cause of action, in order to recover.
If this wasn't the case, you would have companies making sweeping allegations and suing with no evidence. But no company would ever do that, would they?
But does it make them any different from an ethical point of view? ...
In essense, wasn't Apple just trying to throw its weight around as well just like MS would do?
MS habitually throws its weight around, not caring at all about the effects on others, or the industry as a whole. The effects of MS's weight-throwing have been noticeably detrimental to us all.
Apple occasionally throws its weight around, and when it does, it's generally targeted with a limited scope, and doesn't adversely affect the industry, or me, all that much.
Not to defend Apple's abuse in this case--it's quite bad--but a transgression here and there is nothing compared to a company that makes every effort to utilize its ability to do such things as much as possible.
So, in short, it's not the same. Its a bad thing, but not an equivalent one.
Are you telling me that Microsoft Office was DOS based (No GUI as you claim) until Apple contracted for a Mac version of Office? I find this hard to believe. Office was first available for the Mac in 1990. This was the same year Windos v3.0 was released...and there were prior versions of Windows.
I find your claim hard to believe.
Blar.
I don't care what Apple's lawyers think. As far as I'm concerned they should be up against the wall by now.
The story is that the judge unsealed the documents, and those documents show that Apple didn't fulfil its obligations to investigate internally FIRST. Besides, this is the EFF, they usually pick their causes well. I trust their legal actions much more than any corporations, because they're not out just to make money, they're here to protect people's rights.
I wonder if that's grounds for a malicious prosecutions lawsuit. It would serve them right. Those laws exist to protect the rights of the people, and Apple just ignored them.
Apple does make some very good products, but that's no excuse to trample people's rights. All corporations have the ability to be evil, by their nature. They really need to be held in check when that comes out. Even Google with its "do no evil" slogan has the potential.
You are right Office only showed up in 1990, however Word and Excel for the Mac were originally released in 1985.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Word
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Excel
I should know as I extensively used them in my first love affair with the Mac platform in undergraduate school 1984-1989.
B
No one will dare publish interesting rumors, even if they're not legally protected trade secrets, unless they're either judgment-proof or have their own pack of snarling lawyers.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
At the risk of sounding like an apologist, Apple's actions make perfect sense here. There was no need to find out who leaked the information since it was about a product that never existed in the first place. It was safe to assume that the information didn't come from within the company or, if it did, there was no way to determine who would have had access to the "information" as it was all fictional anyway.
The obvious question is then, "Why start a lawsuit over a story about a product that never existed?" I can think of two reasons, although I don't know if they make sense from a legal standpoint as I'm not a lawyer. One, a zero tolerance policy toward rumors. Probably not a good idea since the rumors sites are what kept the fanbase going through all the tough times in the past but maybe they've gotten arrogant with their recent success. The other reason, the idea that if potential customers find out about a future product (even a fictional one) too soon, it could hurt the sales of currently shipping products.
I'd disagree. While MS tends to harm the industry, as you've stated, Apple tends to harm what I consider to be free speach. I couldn't give a damn about the industry in comparison.
You got it there.
Apple would OWN the GUI, and real graphics work would be next to impossible without it, because everything necessary would be patented.
Apple wanted to be what Microsoft is, they just have some good marketing pushing a neuvo Hippie image.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Google and Pixar?
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
OH please.
They tried to shut me up when I insisted that Bruce Perens was carrying Bill Gates' love child.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
So, if Apple does so many things right, develops a new industry, has one of the most successful product in history, creates a killer OS, becomes a top global brand, sparks their performances, sales, and stocks, and makes the whole Valley jealous -- that's apparently talked about too much by your standards.
However, if Apple makes a legal mistake, that should be the topic of conversation?
Look, Apple is doing amazing things. They deserve - and will continue to deserve - immense credit. They're certainly much more impressive even than Google.
So here's the deal. Before you criticize other people about their biases, you should probably recognize your own. If Apple gets more positive press than it does negative, it seems clear that they DO more positive things than negative. If you can't live with it, tough.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Rumors don't come from nowhere. What if all Apple needs to accomplish is to intimdidate a few talkative employees? They don't have to win a lawsuit to demonstrate that they mean business, just bring a suit to court. And consider the other costs of "due diligence": if they have to go from cube to cube with a polygraph, they are going to alienate a lot of their own people. "Shoot first and ask questions later" can work OK if you only mean to fire warning shots.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Sitting in a different jurisdiction, knowing little about U.S. law, I find myself asking: So all it takes for a U.S. corporation to compel a journalist (or anybody else) to reveal his source is that they conduct an internal investigation?
I understand we are talking about the First Amendment here, about fundamental civil rights. You should be able to talk to the press and trust them not to reveal their source unless some action of your own allows them to. If the law won't respect your anonymity, you should know so beforehand and not talk at all. But here your right to anonymity is appearantly dependent on a procedural matter of fact that can be established only after you have talked to the press, and it's the plaintiff alone that gets to decide whether that investigation will happen.
Imagine being denied your Fifth Amendment right not to testify against yourself merely because the plaintiff has acted with due diligence and performed the (hypothetically) required tap-dance-on-a-harpsicorde in the courtroom. It's not like Apple must obtain someone's permission to conduct an internal investigation, right?
Californian law and First Amendment precedent requires Apple check up on itself before threatening journalists.
What does journalists have to do with this? I wasn't aware Apple subpoenaed any journalists. The only ones involved seemed to just be rumor mongering amateurs.
No, shills are PAID; e.g., when an A/C (such as myself) is employed by (say, M$) and defends that company while pretending to be a fan, that's a shill.
Magicians use shills. "I need a volunteer... you!"
Defending them in this incredibly stupid case means you've crossed the line from fan to dumbshit.
Once the rumor sites have Apple's employees tied up in making sworn statements and having their emails searched for evidence of wrongdoing to Apple, it ought to create the greatest working environment imaginable. . . for MS.
You sure these are fan sites?
Did anyone stop and think that it was more of a scare tactic than anything else? I for one can't sit here and actually believe that the lawyers for the fastest growing computer company in the world has inept lawyers.
My guess is they did it to scare the people who were leaking, just to prove that they CAN do something, without actually DOING something.
But then again, I'm just speculating.
Anyone knowledgable care to comment on whether Apple, a non-governemental body, is bound to conduct the same sort of investigation for a civil matter that the government is required to conduct for a criminal matter?
Knowledgable, means, specific knowledge, not an opinion, thanks. I already have one of those.
"At the risk of sounding like an apologist, Apple's actions make perfect sense here. There was no need to find out who leaked the information since it was about a product that never existed in the first place. " This can't be right. If Apple had made up stories about a non-existing product within the company to find out where leaks are, then leaking this information would not be a violation of a trade secret! Only _true_ information can be a trade secret. There are laws that make leaking trade secrets illegal. There are no laws that make leaking fake information about non-existing products illegal.
What rights were infringed?
Some jokers allegedly solicited people to violate non-disclosure agreements (which is a crime in California), and Apple tried to sue for the names of said violators, but didn't have their ducks in a row.
You make it sound like they broke into the Watergate Hotel to dig up dirt on Nixon's enemies or something.
It is my experience that most of the "Apple Fans" (as you put it) that you see "defending Apple" in forums like Slashdot are making different points from what you portray them. Typically, they are saying that the courts should decide whether Apple is right, and not slashbots.
Other popular points:
oh, poor little baby has to press the option key while clicking the mouse...booo hooo
You're assuming that journalists somehow have a general right to protect the anonymity of their sources (not to mention disseminate trade secrets). That's a bad assumption.
Journalists have managed in the past to avoid divulging their sources by invoking the public interest in the stories in question. If Evil Co. is dumping chemicals into the river, and Mary Journalist reports this based on an insider tip, Evil Co. will not be able to force Mary to disclose her source.
But as the judge in this case has so eloquently put it, an interested public does not immediately translate to a public interest. In fact, assuming that an Apple employee did break their NDA, then it is even possible to argue that the public interest lies with Apple--it should be in the public interest that an employee with an NDA not be able to tell the company's legitimate trade secrets to a journalist without any consequences. That would be, in effect, the corporate analogue of a serious weakening to the personal right to privacy.
Anyway, the real question, on which everything hinges, is what constitutes public interest. A merely interested public will not do. Violations of the law, on the other hand, clearly do. But there's a gray area between these two families of cases.
People forget that Apple sued Microsoft to keep non Apple GUIS off the market.
They sued because Microsoft had made an agreement with them about what they were going to do with Windows. Then Microsoft decided the agreement meant one thing, Apple decided it meant another, and the judge sided with Microsoft.
It was Xerox who sued over whether anyone else could have a GUI. Because, after all, they did invent it. The judge said 'you idiots, you waited too long' and that was the end of it.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
This is clearly wrong. The law requires nothing for a lawsuit but an allegation. Most companies actually get the desired result from these kind of lawsuits because the defendent doesn't have the money to fight it. The only way you can recover your money from the plaintif is if you can prove the plaintif knew the lawsuit was bogus, but judges rarely (meanint very, very, very rarely, almost never) actually punish people for filing frivolous lawsuits.
I wonder why the demand in monetary payment
... is not designed to generate profits for anyone.
Then why not find out? Google it:
Linus Clarifies the Linux Trademark
Linus went on to underscore the fact that policing trademarks is not a method of making money, quite the opposite due to Lawyer fees, "not only do I not get a cent of the trademark money, but even LMI (who actually administers the mark) has so far historically always lost money on it."
The Linux Mark Institute
Hm, perhaps you better go let your eyes be checked:
DELL
Apple
And IMO especially Apples mainboards ARE beautyfully laid out.
...are the sux0r
.. big companies are exempt from the law.
Then why can't I play songs purchased from iTunes on my Creative player?
Turn their old "RIP MIX BURN" ad campaign on its head.
MIX the songs into a playlist about 70 minutes long.
BURN them to CD.
RIP them to MP3.
In some cases there MAY be a detectable loss of quality from the re-encoding, but if you cared about quality you'd have bought the original CD instead of the lossy-compressed online versions anyway.
They do have killer designers, but it sure seems that once you really try to write your own software/hardware or criticize/open their development environments to 3rd party expansion - you can expect a hammer very soon. It's almost as bad as the RIAA. Imagine trying to come up with extensibility/behavior changing programs (such as Windowsblinds, etc) in the Apple world? Why don't my iTunes - songs I *purchased* and own the license too - work anywhere else? No wonder so many innovative companies have stopped/limited development for their platforms. People bitch as MS all the time for not opening things up; but they have done so many, many more times than Apple's has in the past - or at least it starts a dialog for change. Yet, if you try to argue or expose Apple they take their toys out and go home. It's like extending the warm handshake of perceived innovation/creativity to the world with the right hand, then slap the tar out of them with the left once their in.
I find this to be an interesting trend in companies that try to present them as 'artistic'/'free-thinking'. Witness Nike that militantly defends its branding - but gets its hand caught in the cookie-jar (sweatshops) just as bad, if not worse, as any 'bad corporate' giant.
Yeah. Except they're wasting another company's/person's resources by suing, even if they don't intend to win.
Dimwit.
I wonder why the demand in monetary payment in order to ensure their trademark isn't abused.
Simple - because defending trademarks costs money. Charging for the use of the trademark is intended to help fund the defense of it.
The True Stella Awards covered a case where Sharper Image sued Consumer Reports over a bad review of their air purifier. A judge found that Sharper Image's suit was bogus, that they'd filed it to try to silence Consumer Reports' criticism, and awarded Consumer Reports $400,000 to cover their legal fees.
If Apple has really not performed the necessary due dilligence in this case, I hope the EFF is filing a SLAPP claim against them on behalf of the defendants.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
It looks like Jobs should have just kicked a chair and swore alot instead...
Sounds like a great time to fire the lawyer for obvious incompetence. Might be a good time to find out if the lawyer even has a law degree and has met the California bar requirements. If he hasn't then sue him for billions. Hey, that is what lawyers do to all the honest hard working people and companies, why not them?
And what if law enforcement is unresponsive, for whatever reason (incompetence, lack of resources, corruption)? Also, you may have to hire a lawyer merely to find out whether the reported behaviour is indeed illegal. If you report it to the police, but a court later finds that the company did in fact have the law on their side, will the company now be able to find out who made them subject to investigation and lots of bad PR?
So in the end, you are better off not talking to the press at all about anything, because you don't know whether the reported activity will be found illegal, and you will lose your anonymity if it isn't. I'm not asking for complete anonymity under any circumstances, I'm asking for anonymity granted in a predictable fashion on known criteria. When requesting anonymity in return for information, "we'll consider it" is not an acceptable answer whether from a newspaper or from law enforcement. It should be either yes or no.
That may be so, and if publishing someone's trade secret is illegal, the plaintiff should target the publisher and have him pay damages, thereby preventing the press from becoming a haven for dissemination of regular trade secrets. While I can understand the plaintiff also wanting to nail the leak, I think allowing them to do so will harm the ability of the press to make contact with more deserving whistleblowers.
The decision to publish rests with the publisher, and with the publisher alone. Therefore his source should not be penalized differently depending on his decision. If someone violates an NDA and talks to a journalist, but the journalist refuses to publish or use the information in any other way, what harm is done? Why should third parties (could be anybody, but especially journalists) be forced to act as informants against either of two parties in a private contract dispute?
By the way, that Freedom of the Press Act I referred to has a history going back to 1766, though its current version was drafted in 1949, with government censorship efforts during World War II in fresh memory. The Swedish government had made a habit of invoking an old and poorly conceived "transport prohibition" to prevent the distribution of newspapers criticizing German politics, and after the war strong protection for press freedom was seen as the best way to prevent a reoccurrence. It's a lesson I hope future generations will learn by reading rather than from hands-on experience. Guess which country invokes contrieved intellectual property claims to silence political opposition abroad even today?
Seriously - I really don't understand why the Apple Fans are defending Apple on this one. Apple crossed the line of reasonableness here, defending them means you've crossed the line from fan to shill.
And what line did they cross, exactly? Apple knows for a fact that trade secrets were violated and that Think Secret willfully published those secrets. Why the hell should they spend a great deal of time and a great deal of money doing an internal investigation when a simple subpoena can accomplish this task in short order. What ethical or legal obligation requires Apple to take the path of least resistance last? Until you or the EFF can answer this question, this is nothing more than a red herring and the ones jumping all over Apple are the ones being completely unreasonable.
Apple is a Fortune 500 Company.
In fact, they are the 263rd largest company in America by Revenues. In 2004, they made over $8 billion in revenues last year.
In comparison, Gateway is ranked #495 with over $3b in revenue.
While Microsoft is larger, #41, with over $36b in revenue, it isn't this massive comparison. Microsoft isn't the largest or most powerful company in America, and they aren't even the most powerful or largest in the Computer Industry (IBM, HP, and Dell are all larger companies).
People treat Apple like it's this little company in a garage, but it's a large company, one of the 300 largest in America, with a market cap in excess of $43 BILLION dollars.
Microsoft is in fact a monopolist with those higher levels of profits, but Apple is NOT small, stop treating them as such.
In comparison, Red Hat's capitalization is under $3b, and is treated like a large bully on Slashdot, while Apple at nearly 15 times the value and a larger company is treated like it's still Steve Jobs and Woz in a garage.
I love my Powerbook, I have 15 Macs in my small business, but Apple isn't a small company and should be held to task for its failures.
BTW: at $36b in revenue compared to $8b in revenue, Microsoft isn't even ONE order of magnitude larger than Apple, and both have influences in society in different ways, hardly orders of magnitude different.
Alex