Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Fails Due Diligence in Trade Secret Case

Posted by samzenpus on from the do-your-homework dept.

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.""

8 of 236 comments (clear)

  1. Case Summary from EFF by brajesh · · Score: 5, Informative


    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.
  2. Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... by damieng · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think you are forgetting that Microsoft didn't have any GUI under development when Apple gave them Mac developer kits for them to write Office for the Mac.

    Apple had given Xerox shares in exchange for just a demo of what they had achieved at PARC.

    Microsoft did not give Apple or Xerox anything.

    --
    [)amien
  3. Re:Summary misleading? by tpgp · · Score: 5, Informative
    Articles from the register and many others make it sound more like EFF had court documents unsealed that show Apple's lack of dilligence.

    From the reg article:

    Apple's legal eagles failed to take depositions or subpoena its own employees, and didn't examine telephone records or individuals' computers. It made only a cursory examination of a single email server. The testimony was provided by Robin Zonic and Al Ortiz, senior manager of investigations, and senior investigator in the corporate security department at Apple....

    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.

    --
    My pics.
  4. Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... by tpgp · · Score: 4, Informative
    I think you are forgetting that Microsoft didn't have any GUI under development when Apple gave them Mac developer kits for them to write Office for the Mac.

    So what? Do you really believe that Apple had the right to "copyright" items like overlapping windows?

    Microsoft (filth tho they are) were IMO able to reimplement Apples GUI if they so chose.

    Or do you believe that Apple should not be able to use items like tabbed dialogue boxes? (they appeared in windows first)

    Apple had given Xerox shares in exchange for just a demo of what they had achieved at PARC.

    Reference please. I see many Apple shills pulling this out, but it seems to be contradicted by Xerox sueing Apple.

    Choice quote from the article:
    Xerox contends that such software should be licensed widely to encourage a single industry standard. But Apple has tried to prevent other companies from imitating its software, in an attempt to differentiate its products from those of competitors.

    Microsoft did not give Apple or Xerox anything.

    so what?
    I don't believe they should have - they didn't steal Apple's copyrighted code did they?

    Apple are a great company - they make nice hardware, a reasonable Unix like system to run on it and are innovative in many ways.

    But it doesn't mean we have to defend them when they're clearly wrong.
    --
    My pics.
  5. MacWord released in 1985 by balamw · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  6. Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... by eyegone · · Score: 3, Informative


    Or do you believe that Apple should not be able to use items like tabbed dialogue boxes? (they appeared in windows first)

    I remember seeing them in OS/2 before Windows 95 came out.

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  7. Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... by Reverberant · · Score: 4, Informative
    Reference please. I see many Apple shills pulling this out, but it seems to be contradicted by Xerox sueing Apple.

    The very link you provided contains the following statement: "Mr. Jobs had been permitted to visit the Xerox laboratory in return for allowing Xerox to invest in one of Apple's last private financing offerings." More links.

    they didn't steal Apple's copyrighted code did they?

    For the GUI, no. For Quicktime (AVI), tes

  8. Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... by kybred · · Score: 3, Informative
    Apple had given Xerox shares in exchange for just a demo of what they had achieved at PARC.
    Reference please. I see many Apple shills pulling this out, but it seems to be contradicted by Xerox sueing Apple. [utexas.edu]
    The very link you reference says this:

    Mr. Jobs had been permitted to visit the Xerox laboratory in return for allowing Xerox to invest in one of Apple's last private financing offerings.

    And another reference:

    Jobs offered Xerox the opportunity to invest $1 million in Apple by buying 100,000 shares at $10 each. Apple was about to go public and the company was already the number one producer of home computers and had the most advanced home units in the world. Xerox jumped at the chance and within a year these shares split into 800,000 shares worth $17.6 million when Apple went public.